Bush got out his veto pen again, killing a bill to expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research:
Announcing his veto to a roomful of supporters, Bush said, "If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. I made it clear to Congress and to the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line."
He vetoed similar embryonic stem cell legislation last July.
And, while we're at it:
Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani have broken with Bush _ and the GOP's social conservatives _ in backing the expansion of federal funding for such research. At the Republican debate on May 3, Giuliani said he supported such an expansion with limits, "as long as we're not creating life in order to destroy it, as long as we're not having human cloning."
McCain then is sorely misinformed about the needs of embryo-destroying stem cell research... even the literature is clear that even if all the IVF "extra" embryos were used, we wouldn't have a sufficient number of lines just do to *research*... to say nothing of mass-producing cures. The only way embryo-destroying stem cell research will "work" (and while various pro-lifers point out plenty of adult-stem cell cures work and say that embryo-destroying stem cell research won't work, I have every confidence that scientists, given time, will figure it out) is if we start growing embryos in masse and start paying women for their eggs to do it.
We'll be farming people, it's just that simple.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
I'm not really moved by either side of the stem cell debate. If States or private entities want to fund the research, it won't bug me.
Federal funds? No way. The last thing we need to be doing is borrowing money from China for deficit spending of matters that are entirely outside of the federal government's enumerated powers.
If the Chinese want to invest in stem cell research, fine, let them take the risk. This kind of spending proposal is just nutty. Seems strange to hear about while another thread has Rudy claiming the fiscal responsibility title.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
You guys have been watching a bit too much Fox News. First off, adult stem cells and the stem cells from embryos have very different properties because adult stem cells can only be used for the purpose they are taken from where as the ones from embryos can be used for any purpose. Also if a network can be developed to use the embryos that are already created then there would be plenty to go towards research. Stem Cell research can only progress at a helpfull rate if federal dollars are being spent on them to help develop things that would in the long run SAVE the country money (think how many federal dollars go towards treating all the things it could cure). And maybe we wouldn't have such a large deficit if thre wasn't some civil war we created going on in Iraq...but oh yeah...we had to stop them and their WMDs.
I wonder what Regan would have to say on Stem Cell research....
And for those who use religious reasons to say it is wrong I quote the West Wing:
I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits."
Bigblueallwet-Sorry, while I would agree there are ethical issues here. The issue is if Embryonic Stem Cell research was promising private funds would be widely available to do that research like any other medical break though. Unfortunately Embryonic Stem Cells most valuable trait is also it biggest problem. They can change into any cell, unfortunately since we can't find a way to regulate what they can change into so they can turn into cancer and have. Embryonic Stem Cell research has had no I repeat no success and is why that research draws little private funding. While Adult, Cord blood and other forms on stem cell research has actually had some success and some treatments and does not require any one to be killed in the process. So the big reason to put public funding into non-Embryonic stem cell research is we get something back for our money and so people are actually getting helped now were as, the other is just a pipe dream.
Oh I forgot Adult stem can now be used for other Cells then their original Cell types, as can Cord Blood Stem Cells, which is supposed to be why we have to use Embryonic Stem Cells, so that's not even a valid excuse.
"Stem Cell research can only progress at a helpfull rate if federal dollars are being spent on them..."
Why and how is this true? If stem cells were really as promising as made out there'd be a lot more private investment in the research. If federal dollars were required for any great invention we'd have a heck of a lot fewer inventions. Why it has to be federal money as opposed to State isn't made clear by anybody.
Let alone the *gasp* huge fact that the federal government is supposed to be limited to its enumerated powers and maybe we shouldn't ignore the Constitution whenever we see fit because *gasp* there's a lot of things, no matter what side of the political spectrum one may be on that we'd like to see not ignored on a whim just because the mob thinks that's cool. If you can ignore Amendment X you can ignore any of the Bill of Rights and that's just plain wrong. Period.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"I wonder what Regan would have to say on Stem Cell research...."
The only Regan I know was fired from Harper Collins for Anti-Semitic remarks.
I applaud Bush for his action and steer stem cell activity where it is showing the greatest success and future promise. Research on stem cells has been going on for decades and with each passing year has shown steady success and consistent promise for helping people deal with or in some cases reverse their ailments. The last fifteen years has shown us which way we need to go on this issue if we are to really help people and not feed them a line of hopeless crap. The track record for embryonic stem cells has been zero. A complete bomb. Researchers have spent more time and money on adult stem cells because they work and are for several reasons far moe viable. They are closer to what is needed to make a difference in a patient, less chance of genetic error than in younger cells, and less chance of side effects as the cells develop into what they are meant to deal with. Those on the left have worked themselves into near hysterics that Bush is somehow holding back cures for people. Pure BS. Private research has never stopped on embryonic stem cells, but even those scientists understand that continued success lies with adult stem cells. Democrats should join in and commend Bush for putting money and effort towards that science that has already yielded us dozens of treatments that are now helping people while leaving to the private sector that science that has shown us nothing.
I don't care either way, but I keep wondering why people think it is ok to just SAY stuff without every using links to prove that what they are saying is actually true. Anybody know what is up with that? It is really annoying.
I know it takes more time, but I've gotten to the point where I don't even read half these folks 'cause whatever comes out of their mouth may as well be made up for all I know. Please post more by posting less! In other words, take the ten minutes to cite your "facts" for the rest of us.
Please?
Anon-Are you disputing our statements maybe you should provide some "facts" that prove us wrong. This "stuff" we have presented has even been presented widely (finally) in the mainstream media even if they do take it with a grain of salt. Still people act like Embryonic Stem Cell research is the only research that works.
I don't understand the arguments against embryonic stem cell research. Families who cannot otherwise conceive have their genetic materials extracted and made into zygotes. some of these zygotes are put into the uterus, in hopes of having one or more healthy children for the family. The rest are frozen for eternity.
Now according to Mr. Bush and a bunch of people here, it is morally wrong to use those zygotes to conduct medical research for the benefit of humanity. But are you saying it is perfectly fine to create those zygotes and keep them frozen forever and ever? Are you against in vitro fertilization entirely, or just the destruction of those extra embryos? There is a logical inconsistency that I am not able to wrap my head around here, any help would be appreciated.
They are not frozen forever, but frozen until the donors don't want them anymore, and then they are thrown in the trash. That's what's really maddening about this - no embryos are saved because of any restrictions that the govt places on stem cell research.
Whether or not there have been great advances in embryonic stem cell research doesn't seem pertinent - the real question is whether there could be significant advances in the field. Unless we can rule out any chance that there could be a use for this, in the same way that that we can rule out turning lead into gold, then we should let the scientists continue their work. Or keep throwing embryos in the garbage. Whatever.
Yes, there's still private funding for this sort of work, and increasingly state money. But the fed govt spends tens of billions of dollars through the NIH for all medical research, and it dwarfs what anyone else spends on this. You can make an argument that the govt shouldn't be spending these amounts of money on research, but you should then accept the fact that America will no longer be the world leader in medical research. That means that other countries will be creating the new medical devices, procedures, and treatments, and getting all of the profits that go with it. That would suck, and I'm willing to pay a little extra to see that it doesn't happen. Many American experts in embryonic stem cell research have already moved overseas to continue their work. Bush should call this the Program to Advance the Science and Research of Second Tier Countries Like France.
Some wags have said that the people that oppose embryonic stem cell research should not be able to get any of the benefits of what may be found because of it. Maybe the people that don't want any govt money going for any medical research shouldn't get any the benefits of what has come from that, which is to say just about the entire field of modern medicine. Feel free to go back to your folk remedies and Smeckler's Powder anytime.
Are you saying it is perfectly fine to create those zygotes and keep them frozen forever and ever? No
Are you against in vitro fertilization entirely, or just the destruction of those extra embryos?
I am against the creation of extra embryos. It should be a law that all embryos created must be implanted.
"But the fed govt spends tens of billions of dollars through the NIH for all medical research, and it dwarfs what anyone else spends on this. You can make an argument that the govt shouldn't be spending these amounts of money on research, but you should then accept the fact that America will no longer be the world leader in medical research. That means that other countries will be creating the new medical devices, procedures, and treatments, and getting all of the profits that go with it. That would suck, and I'm willing to pay a little extra to see that it doesn't happen."
I could see certain medical research being justified with federal funds, such as research against pathogens that could be weaponized, treatment for various toxins, diseases that could be epidemic and brought into our country, illnesses and ailments that tend to be distinctly military in nature that the private sector isn't addressing well, etc. Stuff related to federal matters, national security, interstate/foreign spread of diseases, support of military, etc.
Otherwise welfare for the multi-billion dollar medical industry seems a bit absurd so they can "stay competitive" with the world. I thought that's why we got charged up the whazzoo for care and drugs... so we got the best. Do we have the best because the government helps so much? Sounds more like a Democratic argument. Sounds a bit strange to hear.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Good point Glock - US consumers/taxpayers have been subsidizing drugs for the whole world, how about letting some other countries pick up the tab on this stuff.
I am against the creation of extra embryos. It should be a law that all embryos created must be implanted.
Extra embryos have to be created. Making a baby with IVF is the same as doing it the old fashioned way - a big crap shoot in terms of whether it works or not. So every time embryos are implanted, they send a few up there and hope that one of them takes. If it doesn't, they have to repeat the process. It's not like some says "I want two kids," and the doctor removes only two eggs and only fertilizes those two, and then they automatically work out just fine without any problems.
And if you believe that they can be implanted in other women's wombs, then you might not be getting the point of IVF. IVF was created so that you can have your own kids, with your own genetic material and that of your partner. If people were ok with someone else's kid, they would just cut the crap and adopt, unless they are one of those people that feel that they just have to carry it themselves.
Which brings up GWB's stance on this. If destroying an embryo is so immoral that he couldn't countenance spending government money on it, why not ask for legislation making any destruction of any embryo anywhere in the U.S. illegal? If he feels so strongly that this is the taking of human life, how can he stand by and do nothing when it happens every day? And if he did, how could he be so passionate about stem cell research and do so little about abortion?
So every time embryos are implanted, they send a few up there and hope that one of them takes. If it doesn't, they have to repeat the process.
I understand that, but that doesn't mean you must fertilize 20 eggs before you start the process. It is easier and cheaper to do so, but means you must deal with that little side effect - all those human embryos "left over".
Here is the Italian law:
Only three embryos may now be fertilized at a time, and all three must be transferred into the woman's womb at the same time. Elsewhere in the world, twenty or more are fertilized, and three or so of the healthiest are placed in the woman's womb. Once an Italian couple agrees to the procedure, they will not be allowed to change their mind.
D-Man says it all. It is a real reach to give GWB any "Kuddo's' for this 'grandstanding' veto when he has 'not ask for legislation making any destruction of any embryo anywhere in the U.S. illegal'.
I could see certain medical research being justified with federal funds, such as...stuff related to federal matters, national security, interstate/foreign spread of diseases, support of military, etc. [apologies for elipsis - it was a long quote]
Fair enough. So, as I alluded to, if you are against the federal funding which has given us countless medical advances, would you be willing to refuse to receive those treatments? With a budget of about $30 billion per year, year after year, that's a lot of research, a lot of advances, and would essentially leave you to cure your ailments with tree bark and eye of newt. Most therapies for, let us take cancer as an example, were developed using NIH money, and many cancers are now considered a chronic disease, rather than automatically fatal. To put a human face on things, imagine someone that you know who has had cancer - you wouldn't want to see them denied the best care, right? That best care doesn't just appear out of nowhere - it comes from govt funded studies.
...welfare for the multi-billion dollar medical industry...
The NIH doesn't fund the medical industry, it funds academic studies at places like UI and other research universities. The results of those studies get published, and drug companies then contract with the researchers to continue phase I-III studies to see that it is both effective and safe. If it is, they bring it to market.
Here is the Italian law...
Uh, as screwed up as the American health care system is, I think I'll pass on taking any lessons from the Italians on that front, especially since they are the world-wide leaders in IVF for women in their 60s. Additionally, harvesting three eggs at a time is no problem as long as your ovaries aren't the ones with a six-inch needle in them every time you need to get eggs. It's really something that you probably want to go through only once.
Yeah the rationale doesn't quite fit the action. The law does not ban the research or the procedures, just federal funding. It could quite easily be rationalized by "it's a State/private issue" or by "we'd have to borrow money from China to pay for it" issue. Of course those issues just don't seem like big priorities of Congress either... even when it was GOP controlled. We're making more tax revenue now each year than before the tax cuts... we should be getting ahead... if we could just keep spending in check.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Additionally, harvesting three eggs at a time is no problem as long as your ovaries aren't the ones with a six-inch needle in them every time you need to get eggs. It's really something that you probably want to go through only once.
So you'd rather be one of those "leftover" kids that doesn't even get a chance to develop in the uterus then? Sometimes its hard to do the right thing.
D-Man... I was pointing out how I wouldn't oppose all of the research funding... obviously some of it is well within federal concerns. I'm not advocating cutting all funding for all medical research nor am I advocating cutting myself or anyone else off from treatments (which was a baffling non sequitur).
And we're essentially paying for a great deal of research that the medical industry/States/other private orgs could quite easily be funding themselves. Does that mean there should be no federal medical research funds? Obviously not, as I've argued. But there should be far less in areas where there isn't a necessary and proper federal interest in doing so. I strongly doubt that such cuts will make the US magically less competitive to other more highly socialized healthcare systems.
[typo fix]
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
So you'd rather be one of those "leftover" kids that doesn't even get a chance to develop in the uterus then?
If I was a zygote, I'm sure that I wouldn't care, because I wouldn't have a brain (although I'm sometimes accused of that even now). Still, you are right, I would rather stand up at a podium with the president as a "snowflake child." [ laughing into sleeve ] Seriously, though, these are dividing cell masses. Let's not put so much stock in how we would feel if we were in that position - they don't feel. No central nervous system, and all that.
I was pointing out how I wouldn't oppose all of the research funding... obviously some of it is well within federal concerns.
Point taken - I was just disagreeing with what fell within those concerns.
And we're essentially paying for a great deal of research that the medical industry/States/other private orgs could quite easily be funding themselves.
The medical industry (I'm assuming you mean drug companies) already pour billions into R&D - they are already doing it. As for having the states fund these things, you are talking about potentially having 50 copies of the same experiment being funded simlutaneously - not the most efficient way to proceed. And as for private organizations, look at the Gates Fdn - it is far and away the largest private org that could do this sort of thing (and it does) - but it pays out between $1-2 billion in grants per year, and for things besides med research. There's still a lot of ground to be made up to get to $30 billion per year. Unless someone else starts taxing people on the scale that the feds do, there's nothing easy about funding things on that scale.
Seriously, though, these are dividing cell masses. Let's not put so much stock in how we would feel if we were in that position - they don't feel. No central nervous system, and all that.
And at that stage of development, that is what we all were.
Indeed, it may be unwise to totally dismiss the fact that while these cells don't have much resemblance to more developed human beings they are still, by their DNA and potential alone a unique human being in the earliest stages of development. Why is it unwise to dismiss this? Three reasons: First it could make you sound cold and uncaring about the serious ethical questions on the subject and secondly it opens up your argument to attacks that can easily state you are ignoring the facts to make your argument. The last reason is also important whether or not you agree. We have a fairly religious culture in the US and being so dismissive of these "cell masses" seems incredibly cold and uncaring to those who are either unsure of where the "soul" comes into the equation of human development, or believe that it indeed comes into the equation at conception.
We can't pretend that these are light matters for many of the people concerned as it is very easy for them to tune you out or just become angry at such dismissive comments on a topic with serious moral and religious implications for them.
That said, I'm not a religious person at all. I don't believe in souls but I can understand how someone who believes the soul begins at conception very well may never approve of this type of research or other political issues where human beings at this or later stages of development or concerned. We'll probably never agree on my secular reasoning behind my rationalization of these issues because it would require a change in strongly held beliefs by me or them.
My secular rationalization is that, yes these are unique human beings with unique DNA, but due to their extremely early stage there is no pain, consciousness, etc to weigh against the ethical concerns for what their cells may be used for in research. Especially at this stage the cells themselves would not have developed into later stages of human development without implantation in the uterus, whether naturally or by IVF. Are these concerns unique to the embryonic stem cell debate or abortion? No. The same loss occurs when after natural conception the cells fail to implant in the uterus and they are often just quite literally flushed down the tiolet with nobody knowing the wiser.
If you believe that humans in that stage of development have a soul and such a loss is just an unavoidable tragedy than obviously adding to that tragedy isn't something you'd support. If you don't believe the soul is part of the equation at that early stage (or any stage) then the moral concerns seem to be disproportionate to the normal and natural expendable nature of these pre-implantation zygotes. While adding to this loss may raise some moral and ethical concerns that each person will probably weigh, it is nowhere near on the level of what someone who believes in souls must weigh. Which is why secular folks probably view them as being overly dogmatic and religious folks conversely think the secular folks are supporting immoral actions.
The ethical question rests on whether the research is doing harm... if these cells of humans in the earliest stages of development can feel pain, fear, have a consciousness then harm is a distinct possibility. If one believes in a soul at conception then harm is a distinct possibility. If these cells are reasonably capable of becoming fully developed human beings then there is also a potential to do harm, though in a bit more abstract sense. As a secular person the first two issues aren't an issue for me. The third I feel is negated by the fact that the potential does not exist without unnatural interference... there is more net potential created than ended, and none of the potential ended existed prior to the unnatural interference. This weighed with the possibilities of finding cures and treatments otherwise tips the scales far into the realm of being ethical research, imho.
Obviously people with different views will come to different conclusions and the debate is unlikely to be easily resolved between two groups who both feel that their side is doing the greater good, religiously or morally.
[added a missed word]
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Can unlimited (embryonic) stem cells be found anywhere other than the embryo?
Probably not. This type of cell is present for only a limited time during the earliest stages of growth. After that, the process of development does not appear to require a cell that can form so many different types of cells and tissues and so, unlimited cells disappear. However, there have been a few very interesting reports of cells that have some of the features of unlimited stem cells. Sources here include the amniotic fluid that surrounds the fetus in the womb, rare cells in the blood system, certain types of fat cells, and even the small amount of pulp that remains in baby teeth after they are lost. While scientifically interesting, none of these other unlimited-like cells have proven capable of doing everything that true unlimited stem cells can do. As such, while they remain important to also study in the laboratory, they should not been seen as replacements for unlimited (embryonic) stem cells.
http://www.tellmeaboutstemcells.org/questions-and-answers/index.php
so we should go return all of the west to France because the Louisiana Purchase wouldn't of been allowed by the constitution? As I stated it is of the benefit to the country to make the investment in Stem Cell research because of the possibility of money saved in the future, there are reasons we provide aid to africa to prevent HIV, provide Social Security, and require Abortions to be legal...the constitution is a document open to interpretation...thats why we have a supreme court
Love,
BBB
OMG I spelled something wrong, you are sooooo cool that you caught it...you should like be president of the United States because you are so smart
BBB
PS i left the period off the end of my sentence on purpose.
"so we should go return all of the west to France because the Louisiana Purchase wouldn't of been allowed by the constitution? As I stated it is of the benefit to the country to make the investment in Stem Cell research because of the possibility of money saved in the future, there are reasons we provide aid to africa to prevent HIV, provide Social Security, and require Abortions to be legal...the constitution is a document open to interpretation...thats why we have a supreme court"
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents treaties or other foreign agreements to acquire more territory. There is nothing that prevents foreign agreements for aid or other treaties where the federal government obviously has a necessary and proper interest beyond our borders under foreign commerce or national security. The Constitution is open to interpretation but those interpretations SHOULD be based on the language of the document... not pulled out of our whazzoo. K'thx gg...etc.
Interpreting public to mean private or interpreting the general welfare clause to mean that Congress can enact laws beyond its enumerated powers is just absurd. It's a living breathing document alright... but that has FAR more to do with the ability to amend it than the abilitiy to IGNORE it. Obviously. Thank you for playing but get real.
As the Federalist Papers pointed out, the General Welfare clause isn't intended to allow congress to ignore it's restrictions and enumerated powers... such an idea is a GROSS MISCONSTRUCTION. Period, the end.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"Obviously not, as I've argued. But there should be far less in areas where there isn't a necessary and proper federal interest in doing so."
"The Constitution is open to interpretation but those interpretations SHOULD be based on the language of the document... not pulled out of our whazzoo."
Which of your favorite elected politicians are going to assure this, Glock 21?
"When news of the sale reached the United States, the West was elated. President Jefferson, however, was in a quandary. He had always advocated strict adherence to the letter of the Constitution, yet there was no provision empowering him to purchase territory. Given the public support for the purchase and the obvious value of Louisiana to the future growth of the United States, however, Jefferson decided to ignore the legalistic interpretation of the Constitution and forgo the passage of a Constitutional amendment to validate the purchase. This decision contributed to the principle of implied powers of the federal government."
-http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/jd/14321.htm
Or do you think you have a better understanding of the constitutiton than the State Department?
"When news of the sale reached the United States, the West was elated. President Jefferson, however, was in a quandary. He had always advocated strict adherence to the letter of the Constitution, yet there was no provision empowering him to purchase territory. Given the public support for the purchase and the obvious value of Louisiana to the future growth of the United States, however, Jefferson decided to ignore the legalistic interpretation of the Constitution and forgo the passage of a Constitutional amendment to validate the purchase. This decision contributed to the principle of implied powers of the federal government."
-http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/jd/14321.htm
Or do you think you have a better understanding of the constitutiton than the State Department?
"When news of the sale reached the United States, the West was elated. President Jefferson, however, was in a quandary. He had always advocated strict adherence to the letter of the Constitution, yet there was no provision empowering him to purchase territory. Given the public support for the purchase and the obvious value of Louisiana to the future growth of the United States, however, Jefferson decided to ignore the legalistic interpretation of the Constitution and forgo the passage of a Constitutional amendment to validate the purchase. This decision contributed to the principle of implied powers of the federal government."
-http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/jd/14321.htm
Or do you think you have a better understanding of the constitutiton than the State Department?
BBB... I don't see where my view conflicts with the State Department's there. While I do consider myself a strict constructionist I'm not a carbon copy of the original strict constructionists as I see various provisions of the Constitution that are far more broad than specific. Strictly interpreting those broad provisions results in a broad interpretation and allows for implied powers. I'd have been considered a loose constructionist back in the 18th century though I'd be considered a fairly strict one today. I have a funny feeling that many modern strict constructionists on the bench are probably in the same boat... not because they aren't strictly adhering to the text of the Constitution, but better legal arguments and better understanding of provisions have developed over time.
Anon 7:54... not sure I have any favorite elected politicians who match my views on the Constitution, especially most running in the primaries so far. As far as unelected politicians, Justice Thomas usually comes fairly close to my view though I disagree on some points, such as the extent that liberty is protected from government restriction, whereas the former Justice O'Connor came quite a bit closer to my view on that subject. My views aren't necessarily popular, nor are they set in stone considering how much more I learn on these subjects as time goes on. But they are the views I hold currently and I believe that what I've learned to date supports them fairly well.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed