What the fuck does Laura Bush know about stem cells?

[World Eater]

I've been readin this bitch all over the place today, so finally my blood started boiling and I had to post this.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/220664p-189665c.html

We don't even know that stem-cell research will provide cures for anything - much less that it's very close," Bush said.

Well if you stupid asshats have it your way, we'll never know.

"My father died of Alzheimer's disease ... I hope that stem-cell research will yield cures and therapies for a myriad of illnesses. But I know that stem-cell research is very preliminary right now, and the implication that cures for Alzheimer's are around the corner is just not right, and it's really not fair to the people who are watching a loved one suffer with this disease."

LAURA BUSH

<sigh>

[MsRobyn]

Her job is to parrot the party line. Period.

The Pubbies know (or think, anyway) that a lot of people were turned off by Hillary Clinton's outspokenness, so they're keeping Laura off to the side somewhere and telling her to keep her yap shut unless she's saying what her husband's handlers are telling her to say.

That, and I think she's a total nebbish anyway.

Robin

[robertliguori]

Christopher Reeve is going to kick her ass one day.

[Mr. Moto]

What does John Kerry know about stem-cell research? I didn't notice any biochemistry degrees in his CV.

She's campaigning, and so can be expected to offer opinions about many of the subjects of the day. Like we're all free to do, including right here on this board.

BTW, World Eater, please show me your biology or medical credentials to show how you're opinion is somehow more valid than Mrs. Bush's. I might be inclined to give it more weight, if you have such.

Otherwise, it's just two more people on opposite ends of a political debate. And you're opinion is like your asshole, as the old saying goes.

[light strand]

Actually, we do know stem-cells can be an effective treatment, and have been using it for years.

Bone marrow transplants, are essentially stem cell transplant, although not embryonic. However, Mrs. Bush doesn't distinguish between types, so I don't have to either.

So all of the left wing nut cases can in good faith call her a liar. I just call her a misguided foolish woman.

[Mr. Moto]

I think we all know what she means, light strand.

There is no ban on federal funding of adult stem cell research, and I'm not aware of any mainstream moral or religious opposition to the practice.

Therefore, it's not a political issue this year, or any time for that matter.

What is, though, is embryonic stem cell research, for reasons we all know about.

[KSO]

Her father died of Alzheimers so she's the Republican version of Ron Reagan, Jr.

Although this is the pit, in which facts are sometimes frowned upon, I would just like to point out that all federal funding of embryonic stem cell research was banned by Bill Clinton, in 1994. Bush lifted that ban but limited federal funding to the then-existing 78 lines, which apparently are now down to 19 usable lines.

[tiptoes out and quietly closes door behind her]

[Bricker]

The OP's point seems to be that Mrs. Bush's position is ill-advised because "we'll never know" if stem-cell research will yield valuable results if we don't try it. Therefore, according to the OP, it's foolish to point out that we don't know if stem-cell therapy will do any good.

This miscasts the position against stem-cell research. To the extent stem-cell are derived by destroying human life, even human life in embryonic form, it's simply morally wrong to do. To draw an analogy, even if we could cure Alzheimers by using the bone marrow of seven-week old infants, we wouldn't, because those infants have just as much right to life as do the Alzheimers sufferers, and killing one human so another human may live is an ethically dicey proposition.

Of course, proponents of stem-cell research do not agree that human life is destroyed in the process of harvesting stem cells.

- Rick

[World Eater]

To draw an analogy, even if we could cure Alzheimers by using the bone marrow of seven-week old infants, we wouldn't, because those infants have just as much right to life as do the Alzheimers sufferers, and killing one human so another human may live is an ethically dicey proposition.

Of course, proponents of stem-cell research do not agree that human life is destroyed in the process of harvesting stem cells.

- Rick

You're right Rick, I see a huge difference between a seven week old child, and a couple of embryonic cells.

[MrTuffPaws]

To the extent stem-cell are derived by destroying human life, even human life in embryonic form, it's simply morally wrong to do.

Then she must be against war and the death penalty. Talk about a double standard.

[World Eater]

What does John Kerry know about stem-cell research? I didn't notice any biochemistry degrees in his CV.

Trust me, I don't have much love for Kerry either, but Laura is the one running around yapping more.

She's campaigning, and so can be expected to offer opinions about many of the subjects of the day. Like we're all free to do, including right here on this board.

Sure let her campaign, that's fine.

BTW, World Eater, please show me your biology or medical credentials to show how you're opinion is somehow more valid than Mrs. Bush's. I might be inclined to give it more weight, if you have such. [/quote]

Don't need it, I'm not publically yapping around.

Otherwise, it's just two more people on opposite ends of a political debate. And you're opinion is like your asshole, as the old saying goes.

Never said is was anything else.

[light strand]

KSO you are wrong. There was no ruling one way or the other with Clinton. Each lab applied for funding on protocol alone. There was no distinction in research. So I suppose what I'm saying is "cite please".

Ahh, but Mr Moto, with all due respect, that is not what she said. In addition, she was unequivocally wrong when she said "We don't even know that stem-cell research will provide cures for anything - much less that it's very close" This is an outright falsehood. Unless you don't count bone marrow transplants as cures, or "close" to cure.

She is right on the Alzheimer's though. Although, since I'm currently doing research on Islet cells and type I diabetes mellitus, I sure would like to be able to use stem cells instead of cadaveric ones, but alas, the government won't let me.

So much for smaller government.

Bricker, how do you feel about these embryos being thawed on counter tops because the parents of in vitro fertilized eggs don't want them implanted, do want them donated to childless couples, and can't donate them to research? What should they do?

[light strand]

dammit. That should read:

Bricker, how do you feel about these embryos being thawed on counter tops because the parents of in vitro fertilized eggs don't want them implanted, don't want them donated to childless couples, and can't donate them to research? What should they do?

[jk1245]

The OP's point seems to be that Mrs. Bush's position is ill-advised because "we'll never know" if stem-cell research will yield valuable results if we don't try it. Therefore, according to the OP, it's foolish to point out that we don't know if stem-cell therapy will do any good.

This miscasts the position against stem-cell research. To the extent stem-cell are derived by destroying human life, even human life in embryonic form, it's simply morally wrong to do. To draw an analogy, even if we could cure Alzheimers by using the bone marrow of seven-week old infants, we wouldn't, because those infants have just as much right to life as do the Alzheimers sufferers, and killing one human so another human may live is an ethically dicey proposition.

Of course, proponents of stem-cell research do not agree that human life is destroyed in the process of harvesting stem cells.

- Rick

You are aware that HES cells are derived from embryos that are going to be destroyed regardless, aren't you? There is no creation of embryos to harvest cells.

Also, KSO do you have a cite for your claim that Clinton banned stem cell research in 94? I'm not being snarky, that's honestly news to me. My understanding was that the '94 legislation banned the creation of embryos for research purposes. I do know that in '99 the Nat'l Bioethics Advisory Committee recommended gov't support of the derivations and use of HES cells.

[rjung]

Ignoring Laura Bush's expertise or ignorance on stem cells, I pit her for being a clueless putz for essentially saying, "We don't know if stem cell research will work or not, so let's not try."

Now there's a can-do all-American attitude for ya. :rolleyes:

[World Eater]

Ignoring Laura Bush's expertise or ignorance on stem cells, I pit her for being a clueless putz for essentially saying, "We don't know if stem cell research will work or not, so let's not try."

Now there's a can-do all-American attitude for ya. :rolleyes:

Well said.

[furlibusea]

My understanding is the remaining 19 lines are so adulterated as to be unusable. As it is though she can say whatever she wants. Just the same as Linda Ronstadt, Bruce Springsteen, Bruce Willis, and Britney Spears can. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=270072&highlight=bruce+springsteen)

[Bricker]

You're right Rick, I see a huge difference between a seven week old child, and a couple of embryonic cells.

Sure. I see a huge difference between them as well. And I see a huge difference between a seven week old child and an eighteen-year-old adult, as well. What of it? The difference between our differences, if you'll pardon the confusing phrase, is that I believe both the embryo and the seven-week-old child are human beings, defenseless, and deserving of a special protection under the law. You believe the embryo is just some cells, not yet human.

There is some justification for your view, I admit. But I don't share it.

You are aware that HES cells are derived from embryos that are going to be destroyed regardless, aren't you? There is no creation of embryos to harvest cells.


Yes.

For the very reason that they create embryos that are not going to be implanted in a gestating womb, these methods of conception are, in my view, immoral. To harvest their tiny bodies for stem cells is immoral as well: it encourages a manner of thinking of human beings as commodity.

An analogy might be organ donation. There is no ethical problem associated with organ donation: if a man is dead from a car crash, then let his organs be used to help others live. But we could not sustain this rule if people were routinely being murdered for their organs. If the death occurs accidentally, then, by all means, let us help another. But if the organ use becomes part of a routine, a by-product of illicit killing, then it is immoral.

Bricker, how do you feel about these embryos being thawed on counter tops because the parents of in vitro fertilized eggs don't want them implanted, don't want them donated to childless couples, and can't donate them to research? What should they do?

There was an episode of "Happy Days" in which Richie is being bothered by a bully. With no options left, he prepares to fight the bully, and asks Fonzie, "Fonz, if you were in my situation, what would you do?"

"Rich," replies The Fonz, "I wouldn't be in your situation."

You're asking what should be done at the end of a series of wrong choices. My answer is that that road should never be travelled: that in vitro techniques that leave unimplanted embryos to die are wrong in the first place.

As an analogy, consider a hypothetical in which Nazi experiments on unwilling Jews were found to have produced some sort of tangible benefit. You might say, "Look, the experiments are going to continue; there's nothing we can do about that. The Jews will continue to be tortured and killed. So why not use the scientific data from these experiments to do some good?" It's a tempting thought. But in the end, I would argue it's much more incumbent upon us to reject the entire wrong path, rather than permit ourselves to benefit from some small good that arises incidentally amongst the wrong-doing.

- Rick

[Shayna]

You're asking what should be done at the end of a series of wrong choices. My answer is that that road should never be travelled: that in vitro techniques that leave unimplanted embryos to die are wrong in the first place. How very arrogant of you, he who is able to procreate without assistance and partake in the joys of fatherhood.
As an analogy, consider a hypothetical in which Nazi experiments on unwilling Jews were found to have produced some sort of tangible benefit. You might say, "Look, the experiments are going to continue; there's nothing we can do about that. The Jews will continue to be tortured and killed. So why not use the scientific data from these experiments to do some good?" It's a tempting thought. But in the end, I would argue it's much more incumbent upon us to reject the entire wrong path, rather than permit ourselves to benefit from some small good that arises incidentally amongst the wrong-doing.
You are actually comparing cells to Jews?!?!?! You dare to try to compare the "suffering" of a couple of microscopic cells to the very real suffering of Jews who were tortured in death camps? Scientists who are doing research on cells are akin to Josef Mengele (http://www.auschwitz.dk/Mengele.htm)? Are you fucking shitting me?

I'm -- I dunno -- I'm simply stunned.

[scr4]

Sure. I see a huge difference between [a seven week old child and a couple of embryonic cells] as well. And I see a huge difference between a seven week old child and an eighteen-year-old adult, as well. What of it?
Presumably you also see a huge difference between a few egg and sperm cells, and a fertilized egg. Why is this a greater difference than the others you mentioned?

[light strand]

Bricker, that’s a very legitimate answer, but it doesn’t address the question. Wishing something doesn’t make it so. The current practice with in vitro fertilization is to fertilize as many eggs as possible at a time so the woman can go through a harvest as few times as possible. Also this is done because the fertility drugs cause the production of multiple eggs, and the current practice is to take all of them, as they are a valuable commodity.

Now I neither approve or disapprove of the current fertility practices, but they are what they are. If you want to change that system, go ahead, but we work in the system that is available, so my question stands as asked.

[Gaudere]

An analogy might be organ donation. There is no ethical problem associated with organ donation: if a man is dead from a car crash, then let his organs be used to help others live. But we could not sustain this rule if people were routinely being murdered for their organs. If the death occurs accidentally, then, by all means, let us help another. But if the organ use becomes part of a routine, a by-product of illicit killing, then it is immoral.It is immoral to use organs from people who were murdered? It's not like fetuses are aborted because women and doctors have a burning desire to harvest their stem cells. The stem cell harvesting is incidental to the abortion, just as the organ harvesting from a murder victim would be.

[Gaudere]

Though now of course I see that we're talking about frozen embryos, not aborted ones. :smack: Don't want to hijack this to an abortion debate, but the point about "incidental" benefit remains, I think.

[LordVor]

What does John Kerry know about stem-cell research? I didn't notice any biochemistry degrees in his CV.

No, but he have the opportunity to listen to a mind-numbingly detailed speach about the benefits of research at his very own convention before voicing his support of it.

OTOH, we have Mrs. Bush giving her first position speach in at least 4 years on a topic providing misinformation. No stem cell research can be done, because the approved lines are no longer available. We can make cures from this line of research, and they may not be around the corner but they sure as hell won't get any closer without opening up the research.

I question both the source, the information that she presented, as well as why the hell she was chosen as the messenger in this case.

-lv

[Bricker]

How very arrogant of you, he who is able to procreate without assistance and partake in the joys of fatherhood.

Well, actually, Mrs. Bricker had a part in the procreation as well. I assume you mean, "..able to procreate without assistance from medical technology..."

Since "how arrogant" is nothing but an ad hominem fallacy, I construe your argument to be along the lines of, "You can afford to adopt that view, since you sourself did not need fertility treatments to become a parent; if you had needed such treatments, you would feel differently."

While it's impossible to know for sure how I would feel, I can only respond that the validity (or lack) of my stance is not measured by that yardstick. In other words, it's immoral -- if I, tempted by my earnest desire to become a parent, were to ignore that immorality, that wouldn't change the immorality.

Of course, I absolutely acknowledge that the immorality I claim exists here is not an unquestioned fact. In fact, it's clearly open to debate, and when the people on the various sides of the debate do not share a common definitive source for moral authority, it's well-nigh unresolvable.

But of all the arguments that might be raised against the immorality of this sort of in vitro fertilization, "You'd do it too if you needed to!" is not a particularly persuasive one.



You are actually comparing cells to Jews?!?!?! You dare to try to compare the "suffering" of a couple of microscopic cells to the very real suffering of Jews who were tortured in death camps? Scientists who are doing research on cells are akin to Josef Mengele (http://www.auschwitz.dk/Mengele.htm)? Are you fucking shitting me?

I'm -- I dunno -- I'm simply stunned.

What you call "a couple of microscopic cells" I call "a human being."

Now, in fact, I did not allege that the suffering of Mengele's victims and the suffering felt by the embryos is remotely similar. I said that I was drawing an analogy between the two instances, and the relevant points of the analogy have nothing to do with the relative suffering. If this were a measure of suffering, then there would be little contest: embryos, having no developed nervous system, cannot be said to really suffer at all on a physical level.

No, the analogy was intended to point out that we cannot always simply shrug and say, "There's no helping the fact that bad things are happening; let's get some good out of it." If the bad things are bad enough, the moral course is to eschew all involvement.

It was on that basis that the comparison was drawn.

Presumably you also see a huge difference between a few egg and sperm cells, and a fertilized egg. Why is this a greater difference than the others you mentioned?

Because the moment at which the egg becomes fertilized is the moment at which human life comes into being.

Bricker, that’s a very legitimate answer, but it doesn’t address the question. Wishing something doesn’t make it so. The current practice with in vitro fertilization is to fertilize as many eggs as possible at a time so the woman can go through a harvest as few times as possible. Also this is done because the fertility drugs cause the production of multiple eggs, and the current practice is to take all of them, as they are a valuable commodity.


I believe the current practice is immoral. While I agree that "wishing doesn't make it so," your question is precisely why I raised the spectre of Mengele earlier: to sit complacently by while the immorality of in vitro fertilization occurs and then say, "Well, nothing I could do about that -- now that we've got these un-used embryos around, better get some value out of 'em!" is inherently wrong. Just as, BY ANALOGY, it would be wrong to ignore Mengele's tactics and use the data he developed without regard for its source.

It is immoral to use organs from people who were murdered? It's not like fetuses are aborted because women and doctors have a burning desire to harvest their stem cells. The stem cell harvesting is incidental to the abortion, just as the organ harvesting from a murder victim would be.

No, it's not immoral to use organs from the murdered.

But if there were a human slaughterhouse, say, with hundreds of murder victims being fed through it -- say, a decision to speed things up and empty Death Rows all across the land -- then, yes, I'd say it would be immoral, not to mention ghoulish, to use the organs of the dead.

- Rick

[World Eater]

There is some justification for your view, I admit. But I don't share it.

Well I appreciate that. It seems that when thinking of these things as humans, a real slippery slope is created. As mentioned by another poster, what about sperm? Is masterbation genocide? etc, etc

I really have a hard time considering a clump of cells (yes we're all clumps of cells, you know what I mean) to be a pain feeling human that we're killing with these experiments.

[Bricker]

Well I appreciate that. It seems that when thinking of these things as humans, a real slippery slope is created. As mentioned by another poster, what about sperm? Is masterbation genocide? etc, etc

I really have a hard time considering a clump of cells (yes we're all clumps of cells, you know what I mean) to be a pain feeling human that we're killing with these experiments.

Of course. It's utterly counter-intuitive. Anyone can look at a week-old baby and see it's a person... but a clump of cells? There's no connection to humanity at all, except in the most theoretical of ways.

But I am nontheless convinced of the essential humanity of that clump of cells: that, as you correctly point out, we are all clumps of cells, and the mere fact that some of us have some growing to so doesn't change the essential quality of humanity that exists from the moment of conception onwards.

As I say, I freely acknowledge this view is unprovable and I fully understand how others just don't buy it.

- Rick

[Shayna]

I construe your argument to be along the lines of, "You can afford to adopt that view, since you sourself did not need fertility treatments to become a parent; if you had needed such treatments, you would feel differently."

<snip>

But of all the arguments that might be raised against the immorality of this sort of in vitro fertilization, "You'd do it too if you needed to!" is not a particularly persuasive one.
Pay me the courtesy of not putting words in my mouth or "construing" what you think I think you would think, or whatever. I couldn't care less how you might or might not feel if you were unable to have children through the act of intercourse. You, yourself, couldn't possibly know how you would feel in such an event, seeing as how you aren't, and never will be, faced with such a situation. And given that, it is highly arrogant of you to pass judgment on others who avail themselves of the available medical science so that they might enjoy what you enjoy.
Now, in fact, I did not allege that the suffering of Mengele's victims and the suffering felt by the embryos is remotely similar. I said that I was drawing an analogy between the two instances, and the relevant points of the analogy have nothing to do with the relative suffering. If this were a measure of suffering, then there would be little contest: embryos, having no developed nervous system, cannot be said to really suffer at all on a physical level.

No, the analogy was intended to point out that we cannot always simply shrug and say, "There's no helping the fact that bad things are happening; let's get some good out of it." If the bad things are bad enough, the moral course is to eschew all involvement. That's just a bunch of fucking bullshit doublespeak to try to weasel out of comparing cells to living, breathing, feeling human beings. There is no analogy, plain and simple. That you would even attempt to draw one is outrageous and absurd, especially since you admit there is no suffering on the part of a blob of cells, even if you wish to refer to that blob of cells as a human being. Nor is anyone making the supposed argument that invitro-fertilization is a "bad thing" that we must accept is happening for the sake of medical science. Ergo, there's no analogy under either scenario.

[Zoe]

Bricker, if I understand you correctly, you believe that in-vitro fertilization is immoral because embryos are created and destroyed in the process of creating human life.

The same is true in the more natural process of conception. My doctor has said that it is not unusual for a woman to conceive and pass an embryo without ever having been aware that she was pregnant. And of course, many women lose babies that they are unable to carry to term. Others carry their children to term only to have the babies die during delivery.

In those cases, does the act of lovemaking become immoral in retrospect? Is it immoral all of the time because we are taking the chance of creating and then destroying an embryo?

Could you look a child born of in-vitro fertilization in the eye and tell that human being that the act that conceived her or him was immoral?

Then let's look at the reality of the current situation. In-vitro fertilization is not going away until something better comes along. That is pretty much a given. Those embryonic cells will continue to be destroyed. Trashed. Incinerated.

Meanwhile, a full term newborn infant in a nearby hospital is dying because of limits on stem cell research. A seven year old little girl has her insides rot out because of limits on stem cell research. A woman who has been married two months is losing her ability to remember who her husband is because of limits on stem cell research. And a newly conceived child will never be carried to term because of limits on stem cell research.

Don't think in terms on clumps of cells or embryos or fetuses. Please thing about real human beings like yourself and your family and everyone you cherish -- who love and suffer and live in anguish because well-intentioned people such as yourself are refusing to accept that it isn't a choice anymore of creating the embryos or not creating the embryos. The choice is whether

1) to use the embryos that will be created in the process of in-vitro fertilization to bring life and healing, love and joy to human beings or

2) to trash the embryos and allow the suffering and loss to continue in the name of "morality."

I truly understand that we disagree on the morality of invitro fertilization as the process is done today and you certainly must live with your own sense of what is moral. But given that we are left with the two choices above, what then?

Pax

[furt]

I find it a propos in this context to mention that like Bricker, John Kerry believes life begins at conception; however he still wants to use embyonic cells for research. FWIW.

[manhattan]

No, it's not immoral to use organs from the murdered.

But if there were a human slaughterhouse, say, with hundreds of murder victims being fed through it -- say, a decision to speed things up and empty Death Rows all across the land -- then, yes, I'd say it would be immoral, not to mention ghoulish, to use the organs of the dead. To that point, the use of organs taken from a person put to death by the State is illegal in every U.S. jurisdiction that I'm aware of -- despite, according to a quick Google search, occasional attempts to change things (including a proposal in Georgia to use the guillotine to facilitate exactly that :eek: ). And human rights observers have no small amount of criticism of China's policy of using the organs of the executed.

[Muad'Dib]

The same is true in the more natural process of conception. My doctor has said that it is not unusual for a woman to conceive and pass an embryo without ever having been aware that she was pregnant. And of course, many women lose babies that they are unable to carry to term. Others carry their children to term only to have the babies die during delivery.

Those are babies that die, not babies that are killed.

Could you look a child born of in-vitro fertilization in the eye and tell that human being that the act that conceived her or him was immoral?

In a sort of "they know not what they do" sorta way, yes. Of course, you would not say that to a child, though.

Meanwhile, a full term newborn infant in a nearby hospital is dying because of limits on stem cell research. A seven year old little girl has her insides rot out because of limits on stem cell research. A woman who has been married two months is losing her ability to remember who her husband is because of limits on stem cell research. And a newly conceived child will never be carried to term because of limits on stem cell research.

They are hurting because they are sick, not because of a lack of stem-cell research.

Don't think in terms on clumps of cells or embryos or fetuses. Please thing about real human beings like yourself and your family and everyone you cherish -- who love and suffer and live in anguish because well-intentioned people such as yourself are refusing to accept that it isn't a choice anymore of creating the embryos or not creating the embryos.


Please realize that if I and Bricker are right, you would be murdering utterly innocent human beings for the chance that their body parts could be canabalized to cure someone elses disease.

[Captain Amazing]

Could you look a child born of in-vitro fertilization in the eye and tell that human being that the act that conceived her or him was immoral?

Isn't that not really a relevant question, and more an appeal to emotion? For example, I think sex outside of marriage is immoral. But I'd never say to somebody who was conceived outside of marriage that the act that conceived him or her was immoral, because, firstly, it's not his fault he was conceived that way, and secondly, and more importantly, it would be a cruel thing to say and could hurt him. But that wouldn't change my belief that the act that conceived her or him WAS immoral.

It sounds like, with that question, you're asking if Bricker is tactful, more than anything else.

[Marley23]

Those are babies that die, not babies that are killed.
Unless you don't think they're alive in the first place. :rolleyes:

They are hurting because they are sick, not because of a lack of stem-cell research.
The lack of stem-cell research may be retarding the search for a cure.

Please realize that if I and Bricker are right, you would be murdering utterly innocent human beings for the chance that their body parts could be canabalized to cure someone elses disease.
The use of 'human being' to describe embryonic stem cells is absurd.

[Evil Captor]

If it were possible to clone embryonic stem cells (and there's ample reason to suppose it may be someday soon) would THAT be OK? And would it work? Would it sidestep the objections that the right-to-lifers have, leaving them with no grounds whatsoever to oppose it?

[light strand]

Bricker, I understand the argument you are making (in least tactful way possible) and on some level I agree with you, however, I maintain my stance. If we go with the Mengele analogy, would you say that organs harvested by those killed by Mengele should not be used for transplant?

You agree that murder victims organs are fair game (which they are, by the way, if the family agrees) the should not those victims be used for the greater good?

There are many things about in vitro with with I disagree (selective reduction because some nimrod Dr. decided to implant 14 embryos) but the embryos exist. I therefore think that until we change the system, that we may as well use the embryos for research. The greater good, until the system is changed.

There is currently a problem with embryo abandonment, where the parents of the embryos no longer pay storage fees, and the facilities simply thaw, and destroy the embryos, to make space. I suggest we use these for furthering research.

Call me cold hearted, but until there is better regulation of fertility clinics, I see no better options.

[Apos]

The OP's point seems to be that Mrs. Bush's position is ill-advised because "we'll never know" if stem-cell research will yield valuable results if we don't try it. Therefore, according to the OP, it's foolish to point out that we don't know if stem-cell therapy will do any good.

This miscasts the position against stem-cell research. To the extent stem-cell are derived by destroying human life, even human life in embryonic form, it's simply morally wrong to do.
- Rick

I've tried to see this issue from the perspective of others. I failed. Thinking a blob of protoplasm created in a lab with no nervous system or even any organs is "human life" in the sense that has any moral meaning whatsoever is really really really fucking stupid. It's a position not borne out of any sort of reasoning I've been able to see.

[Bricker]

Pay me the courtesy of not putting words in my mouth or "construing" what you think I think you would think, or whatever. I couldn't care less how you might or might not feel if you were unable to have children through the act of intercourse. You, yourself, couldn't possibly know how you would feel in such an event, seeing as how you aren't, and never will be, faced with such a situation. And given that, it is highly arrogant of you to pass judgment on others who avail themselves of the available medical science so that they might enjoy what you enjoy.

Since you reject my attempt to construct an argument for you - for which I apologize, seeing as how it was evidently not the argument you intended - I am unable to discern what your argument actually is. "You are arrogant," is not exactly an argument remarkable for its cogency, since my arrogance doesn't have the slightest thing to do with the rightness or wrongness of my point. That's why ad hominem attacks are a logical fallacy: they invite the audience to infer that because the proponent of a belief is personally reprehensible in some way, their point is somehow weak. I don't know if you intended that inference or not, but it's unclear to me what other argument you are making. Let's assume that you're right, and it's highly arrogant of me to pass judgement in this instance. What has that to do with the issue of whether the judgement is right or wrong?

That's just a bunch of fucking bullshit doublespeak to try to weasel out of comparing cells to living, breathing, feeling human beings. There is no analogy, plain and simple.

Once again, I feel constrained to point out that "fucking bullshit doublespeak," while a nice turn of phrase, is hardly a cogent rebuttal. And in fact, "living, breathing, feeling human beings" are, by some accounts, made up of a large bunch of cells.


That you would even attempt to draw one is outrageous and absurd, especially since you admit there is no suffering on the part of a blob of cells, even if you wish to refer to that blob of cells as a human being.

Right. Because, as I previously pointed out, the issue of the amount of suffering endured by the small group of cells (the embryos) and the large group of cells (the adult human victims) was not part of the analogy. If I draw an analogy to corporate culture by mentioning a pack of hyenas, I hope your attention will be drawn to the hyenas' competitive and fierce jostling for position, or perhaps their tendency to feed on the dead carcasses others have killed, rather than carping at me about the fact that hyenas have fur and paws and most corporate executives do not.

The analogy goes to the issue of profiting, even as a unintended side effect, from the fruits of immorality and evil.

- Rick

[Bricker]

Bricker, if I understand you correctly, you believe that in-vitro fertilization is immoral because embryos are created and destroyed in the process of creating human life.

The same is true in the more natural process of conception. My doctor has said that it is not unusual for a woman to conceive and pass an embryo without ever having been aware that she was pregnant. And of course, many women lose babies that they are unable to carry to term. Others carry their children to term only to have the babies die during delivery.


As with all moral acts, I contend that intentionality is the key. When a husband and wife make love, open to the possibility of transmission of life, they are intending just that - the possible creation of new life. If it happens, through no fault of their own, that a conceived embryo undergos a spontaneous miscarriage, that's no one's fault.

Could you look a child born of in-vitro fertilization in the eye and tell that human being that the act that conceived her or him was immoral?


It's not a task I would enjoy. But is this question really probative of the truth? I would not enjoy looking a child that was the product of rape or incest in the eye and telling him that the act that conceived him was immoral. That would be cruel.

But we cannot conclude that rape and incest are moral from that exercise, can we?

Then let's look at the reality of the current situation. In-vitro fertilization is not going away until something better comes along. That is pretty much a given. Those embryonic cells will continue to be destroyed. Trashed. Incinerated.

Meanwhile, a full term newborn infant in a nearby hospital is dying because of limits on stem cell research. A seven year old little girl has her insides rot out because of limits on stem cell research. A woman who has been married two months is losing her ability to remember who her husband is because of limits on stem cell research. And a newly conceived child will never be carried to term because of limits on stem cell research.

Don't think in terms on clumps of cells or embryos or fetuses. Please thing about real human beings like yourself and your family and everyone you cherish -- who love and suffer and live in anguish because well-intentioned people such as yourself are refusing to accept that it isn't a choice anymore of creating the embryos or not creating the embryos. The choice is whether

1) to use the embryos that will be created in the process of in-vitro fertilization to bring life and healing, love and joy to human beings or

2) to trash the embryos and allow the suffering and loss to continue in the name of "morality."

I truly understand that we disagree on the morality of invitro fertilization as the process is done today and you certainly must live with your own sense of what is moral. But given that we are left with the two choices above, what then?


I could make the same argument about the fruits of Nazi research. I could point out that the evils of the Nazis are a done deal; meanwhile, why not use the research on men repeatedly dunked in freezing water to help develop cures for hypothermia victims?

Indeed, there's a case to be made for doing that. And at this remove, years after the horrors of Mengele are over, I might even agree. But if you had come along during the time that Mengele was perpetrating his horrors and suggested that we may as well use his research, since "[he] is not going away until something better comes along..." I would have opposed it.

I admit there is a practical argument to be made, and you're making it.

But I can't stomach the thought of benefitting from what amounts to a horrendous act.

- Rick

[chique]

Please realize that if I and Bricker are right, you would be murdering utterly innocent human beings for the chance that their body parts could be canabalized to cure someone elses disease.The "utterly innocent human beings" are going to be "murdered" regardless.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Then she must be against war and the death penalty. Talk about a double standard.

Now why would you go and build such an easily destroyed strawman like this one? I mean, come on. The thing that concerns me is that you might actually believe this, so I'll elaborate.

1) There are cases when war is a necessary evil. I don't care to get into a huge debate about when and where, but I will just say that World War II is a good example of the necessity of war. Of course, you may be the pacifist type that reject war under any precepts, but that's frankly rather unrealistic if you ask me.

2) The difference between the death penalty and abortion for the sake of stem-cell research (or abortion in general) is that the murdered child had absolutely zero chance to make any decisions, either good or bad, whereas the person on death row has made a decision that was so reprehensible that society has determined that he has forfeited his right to live any longer. First he/she commits the crime, then he/she is judged by 12 men/women with strict evidentiary procedures and deliberation amongst the jury pool, and then he goes through a lengthy sentencing phase where the jury has no obligation to sentence him to death. Then he goes through all the appeals, and then he is executed. What defense does a baby get? Bupkis. None at all. A unilateral decision, a few minutes in a hospital, and just like that a baby is murdered. No due process, no trial, nothing. That's the difference.

[Marley23]

Indeed, there's a case to be made for doing that. And at this remove, years after the horrors of Mengele are over, I might even agree. But if you had come along during the time that Mengele was perpetrating his horrors and suggested that we may as well use his research, since "[he] is not going away until something better comes along..." I would have opposed it.

I admit there is a practical argument to be made, and you're making it.

But I can't stomach the thought of benefitting from what amounts to a horrendous act.
You know that this actually did happen, right? At least some German scientists went to work for the US after the war, and I vaguely remember hearing that 'work' they'd done involving the effects of pressure on humans proved helpful to NASA, for example.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Well, this may be more appropriate for MPSIMS, but I'll tell you why this is a crucially important issue for me, and why I beg you all to strongly encourage, in whatever way you are able, greater flexibililty in stem cell research.

When my oldest son was 3 years old, he developed diabetes. One of the worst things that I did was to visit the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation web page, which features all the risks for complications associated with living with diabetes as well as my son's potential risk for death before he's 20.

During our training in how to treat his diabetes on a daily basis, one of the amusing things was that anytime there was discussion about new technologies (such as a blood monitoring watch or other non-puncturing blood glucose testers) we were told that these things would be available in 3 to 5 years. Yeah, okay, sure. We'll just wait and see.

However, when I first heard the reports about stem cells on the radio on the way home from work, I wept. Then it seemed like there was a new story every three months or so, new advances and new promise. All my son needs are new pancreatic islet cells. They have developed a way to inject new donor islet cells, but these also require a host of medications to prevent rejection and failure. They also suffer from the same limitations within the donor pool that a pancreatic transplant would. Stem cells provide the promise of a source for islet cells, perhaps ones that would be infallable to issues of rejection.

Bush has severely hindered this progress, and this new promise. Please do whatever you can to change things and help move research forward.

By the way, my son is now 9, heading into fourth grade, and able to test his own blood and give himself his own injections. I have great hope for him.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

OK, beyond all the rhetoric, tell me more about this, Hentor. Is it a necessity for them to be derived from stem cells? Can you get them from any ordinary Joe without requiring the sacrifice of their own pancreas? I ask because I would be willing to get tested if it wouldn't kill me to do so. Do elaborate, please.

[Shayna]

Since you reject my attempt to construct an argument for you - for which I apologize, seeing as how it was evidently not the argument you intended - I am unable to discern what your argument actually is. "You are arrogant," is not exactly an argument...
Ding, Ding, Ding -- and we have a winner! I wasn't making an "argument," and why you tried to turn it into one, with a false premise and a wrong conclusion, completely fabricated by yourself, I have no idea. I was making a statement -- an observation of what I think of your opinion. I find it arrogant.
Right. Because, as I previously pointed out, the issue of the amount of suffering endured by the small group of cells (the embryos) and the large group of cells (the adult human victims) was not part of the analogy.
Backpedal much? As an analogy, consider a hypothetical in which Nazi experiments on unwilling Jews were found to have produced some sort of tangible benefit. You might say, "Look, the experiments are going to continue; there's nothing we can do about that. The Jews will continue to be tortured and killed. So why not use the scientific data from these experiments to do some good?"
You can't set up your analogy by trying to appeal to our sense of horror at the torture suffered by real, live, feeling human beings, and then claim that torture wasn't even a part of your analogy, let alone a relevant part. It's right there in black and white. The analogy goes to the issue of profiting, even as a unintended side effect, from the fruits of immorality and evil. No it doesn't, no matter how much you try to backpedal it to be. How you can draw any analogy between supposed potential "profit" from torturing real, living, feeling humans vs the absolute benefits (creating life!) of not torturing microscopic cells that "hav[e] no developed nervous system [and] cannot be said to really suffer at all on a physical level," I will never begin to understand. They aren't even remotely the same on any level. You may think they're both immoral and evil, but doesn't mean they are comparatively so. I think bearing false witness against your neighbor is immoral and evil. And I think murdering your neighbor is immoral and evil, yet it would be ridiculous to try to draw any kind of analogy between those two acts.

[Muad'Dib]

If it were possible to clone embryonic stem cells (and there's ample reason to suppose it may be someday soon) would THAT be OK? And would it work? Would it sidestep the objections that the right-to-lifers have, leaving them with no grounds whatsoever to oppose it?


The morality might be a little fuzzy (depending on the nature of such cells), but if it was not from, and did not result in the death of a viable embryo, then I would give tentative approval for it.

[Barbarian]

OK, beyond all the rhetoric, tell me more about this, Hentor. Is it a necessity for them to be derived from stem cells? Can you get them from any ordinary Joe without requiring the sacrifice of their own pancreas? I ask because I would be willing to get tested if it wouldn't kill me to do so. Do elaborate, please.

I'll sub for the other Barbarian on this one.
From the National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse:
The goal of islet transplantation is to infuse enough islets to control the blood glucose level without insulin injections. For an average-size person (70 kg), a typical transplant requires about 1 million islets, extracted from two donor pancreases

That being said, in the Bizarro world inhabited by the New York Post, there's an opinion column today (Wednesday) by Robert Goldberg from the Manhattan Institute's Center for Medical Progress claiming that Kerry's plan to allow stem cell research will actually result in less scientific research....

[calm kiwi]

To that point, the use of organs taken from a person put to death by the State is illegal in every U.S. jurisdiction that I'm aware of -- despite, according to a quick Google search, occasional attempts to change things (including a proposal in Georgia to use the guillotine to facilitate exactly that :eek: ). And human rights observers have no small amount of criticism of China's policy of using the organs of the executed.

The guillotine? :eek: Is america going forward or merrily marching back to the dark ages? Will the public be invited to veiw? It might make a nifty reality show, humiliation is old hat now. Executions could be the new IN thing.

How can abortion and the use or the aborted be an issue if the death penalty isn't ? Yes fetuses may be alive but they are not "someone" yet. Those getting the death penalty are actually real live people............. as are those who may benefit from stem cell research.

As someone who has had an abortion, I would be more then happy if it had led to something useful to the world in general.

[Bricker]

Ding, Ding, Ding -- and we have a winner! I wasn't making an "argument," and why you tried to turn it into one, with a false premise and a wrong conclusion, completely fabricated by yourself, I have no idea. I was making a statement -- an observation of what I think of your opinion. I find it arrogant.


OK.

You can't set up your analogy by trying to appeal to our sense of horror at the torture suffered by real, live, feeling human beings, and then claim that torture wasn't even a part of your analogy, let alone a relevant part. It's right there in black and white.

Very well. Since it appears impossible to view that analogy without myopic focus on the torture, I withdraw it, and offer a substitute in which unwilling people are used for medical experiments and then painlessly put to death, or painlessly die as a consequence of the medical experiments.

I can't see that it changes anything: the horror I'd feel at a suggestion that we use that data would remain.

You may think they're both immoral and evil, but doesn't mean they are comparatively so. I think bearing false witness against your neighbor is immoral and evil. And I think murdering your neighbor is immoral and evil, yet it would be ridiculous to try to draw any kind of analogy between those two acts.

Under some circumstances, depending on what you wished to prove, it would be perfectly valid to draw an analogy between those two acts. In fact, you just did.

- Rick

[Hentor the Barbarian]

OK, beyond all the rhetoric, tell me more about this, Hentor. Is it a necessity for them to be derived from stem cells? Can you get them from any ordinary Joe without requiring the sacrifice of their own pancreas? I ask because I would be willing to get tested if it wouldn't kill me to do so. Do elaborate, please.Although Barbarian, who probably rues the day I inadvertently stole his name, has answered, I would just like to say that you are a better man than I am, Airman. If you are ever in Pittsburgh, I hope I can buy you a beer.

Right now, as I understand it, the only way to get the islet cells is from a donor pancreas, so your very generous offer wouldn’t work. I do hope that anyone who is able to be an organ donor, however, has done whatever they need to do to make that happen.

What we need to be doing, however, is all the research that we can to figure out how to turn stem cells into other cells, such as pancreatic islet cells. Hopefully, eventually, we will find a way to do this with adult stem cells, but since these are more specified by their function (i.e. blood stem cells develop into types of blood cells, skin stem cells into types of skin cells, etc), the job of figuring out how to generate a specific type of cell is that much more difficult. I just hate to have our researchers swimming with jeans on in this matter, and I feel a huge clock ticking.

[Mr. Moto]

Sure.

You do realize, though, that there are other sources for embryonic stem cells, including umbilical cord blood. Perhaps setting up a system where people could donate their umbilical cords could solve this problem.

Adult stem cell research is also showing a lot of promise, without any moral issues.

I really think stepping back and thinking creatively, as scientists are supposed to do, might really help us around some of these issues.

[calm kiwi]

Surely all those fetuses who are being and will continue to be aborted should be out to good use though?

They are already dead, no matter if you agree or not. Why not use a viable source?

[Bricker]

Surely all those fetuses who are being and will continue to be aborted should be out to good use though?

They are already dead, no matter if you agree or not. Why not use a viable source?

I believe the esteemed manhattan addressed this point above thusly:

To that point, the use of organs taken from a person put to death by the State is illegal in every U.S. jurisdiction that I'm aware of -- despite, according to a quick Google search, occasional attempts to change things (including a proposal in Georgia to use the guillotine to facilitate exactly that ). And human rights observers have no small amount of criticism of China's policy of using the organs of the executed.

[Rune]

Surely all those fetuses who are being and will continue to be aborted should be out to good use though?

They are already dead, no matter if you agree or not. Why not use a viable source?Because it’s a degradation of life. The actual cause of death is immaterial, human life cannot without consent be reduced to raw input into an industry production. Besides “good use” is entirely dependent on perspective.
Good use to you is not necessarily “good use” for the human life that was foetus.

[BobLibDem]

Back to Laura- obviously she has the right to speak her mind. The quarrel I have with her is that she appears to merely parrot what her husband stands for. I have more respect for wives that speak their own minds whether hubby agrees or not (like Teresa and Hillary) than those that never publicly disagree with their husband (like Nancy before Ron got Alzheimer's or Laura today). If Laura Bush would just give us one instance of where she has an independent thought from George, I'd have a lot more affection for her.

On stem cells, the notion of aborting just to farm stem cells is evil. However, if abortion is legal why throw the cells away? I think the real reason for opposing embryonic stem cell research is that it might work. If it cured diabetes for example, there would be a huge demand for these cells and that would put a hurdle in front of future attempts to ban abortion. If we started to cure some of our most dreaded diseases with embryonic stem cells, then public resistance to banning abortion would be overwhelming.

[light strand]

Airman, since Islet Cell Transplants are what I do for a living, I suppose you could call me an expert on this particular question.

For a bit of background: the Islets of Langerhans are clumps of insulin producing cells that are found in your pancreas. It is these cells which are not behaving properly in Diabetics.

A group of Scientist in Edmonton Ontario found a way to successfully transplant cells which had been isolated from a cadaver pancreas into a living person’s liver, allowing them to be insulin free. This is the procedure which we use at my facility with modifications, it called “The Edmonton Protocol”.

The drawbacks of the procedure are many.

We use cadaver pancreata and are low on the priority list. Our pancreata can not be suitable for whole organ transplant. Whole organs have priority, so we tend to get a lot of fatty pancreata which are not good for isolation.

Only one of three (although this number is rising) isolations will yield enough Islets for transplant. The procedure for isolating Islets is a bit of an art form, as is the procurement of the organ. This is made even more difficult as the number three doctor in the country for procurement and isolations had his Visa renewal denied for no apparent reason so he had to move back to Israel for two years after which he will be allowed to return to the US (obviously a sore spot with me).

Currently, we are planning to give most recipients two transplants, but this too is getting better as we learn more about the process and the handling and culture of the cells.

The recipients are only insulin free for about two years. Although the transplants do seem to stabilize their insulin requirements, so they can live a whole lot more normal lives.

But the biggest problem we’re having right now is with the immunosuppressant drugs. They are killing off about 50% of our cells, and they are extremely costly and uncomfortable. One program is having a hell of a time because some of the patients are find the drugs worse than the disease and are dropping out of the study.

Stem Cells are really promising for Islet transplant. The Diabetes Research Institute in Miami is doing most of research on them, and they are predicting five years before they can start clinical trials.

Islets derived from Stem Cells would alleviate almost all of the above problems, and I can wait to get my hands on some.

Hentor, your son has a very promising future.

Bricker, I noticed you didn’t address my last post.

[Bricker]

Back to Laura- obviously she has the right to speak her mind. The quarrel I have with her is that she appears to merely parrot what her husband stands for. I have more respect for wives that speak their own minds whether hubby agrees or not (like Teresa and Hillary) than those that never publicly disagree with their husband (like Nancy before Ron got Alzheimer's or Laura today). If Laura Bush would just give us one instance of where she has an independent thought from George, I'd have a lot more affection for her.

But why do you assume she is parrotting? It seems equally plausible that she independently agrees with the point of view. Others in this thread - me, for example - have also expressed support for the view Mrs. Bush espoused, but I assume you understand that I'm not parrotting either her or her husband -- that I have independent and (I believe) adequate grounds upon which to base my opinion. (You may, of course, disagree about the adequacy of my grounds, but surely not the independence).

- Rick

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Please, we are not talking about aborting fetuses for stem cells!

Stem cells are derived from a blastocyst: a fertilized egg at about five days development. If you believe that life begins at conception, I respect that, but let's not conflate stem cell research with abortion and harvesting fetuses. THESE ARE NOT FETUSES.

Mr. Moto, certainly correct me if I am wrong, but the umbilical cord blood would yield multipotent stem cells, not the pluripotent cells that a blastocyst would yield, correct?

You may feel that you have the luxury of having researchers step back to scratch their noggins. I don't.

[Bricker]

Bricker, I noticed you didn’t address my last post.

I thought I had, by implication. But...

Bricker, I understand the argument you are making (in least tactful way possible) and on some level I agree with you, however, I maintain my stance. If we go with the Mengele analogy, would you say that organs harvested by those killed by Mengele should not be used for transplant?


Yes. I would say the organs killed by Mengele should NOT be used for transplant.

You agree that murder victims organs are fair game (which they are, by the way, if the family agrees) the should not those victims be used for the greater good?


No. Because there is a huge difference between your random, run-of-the-mill murders, and the systematic slaying of Mengele.

There is currently a problem with embryo abandonment, where the parents of the embryos no longer pay storage fees, and the facilities simply thaw, and destroy the embryos, to make space. I suggest we use these for furthering research.

Call me cold hearted, but until there is better regulation of fertility clinics, I see no better options.

Your argument is eminently practical. But it seems to me equally practical to use the organs of executed criminals... right?

Yet there is something in me that recoils from such a practice. And I'm not the only one.

- Rick

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Bless you, light strand! I knew I liked you for more than your thoughtful message board contributions!

[light strand]

Mr Moto, you’re wrong. Cord blood is not the same as they are multipotent, not pluripotent like embryonic stem cells. In other words; cord cells can only become certain cells (blood, marrow, etc), while embryonic cells can become any cell (nervous, pancreatic, whatever).

Calm Kiwi, BobLibDem, we are not talking about abortion (where are people getting this?). We are talking about the fertilized eggs from in vitro fertilization that remain unused and are to be destroyed.

Hentor you're more than welcome. Let me know if you need any more info. I'm at thielka1 at hotmail dot com.

Bricker, thank you for your response. I suppose we have to agree to diagree on this one.

[calm kiwi]

Because it’s a degradation of life. The actual cause of death is immaterial, human life cannot without consent be reduced to raw input into an industry production. Besides “good use” is entirely dependent on perspective.
Good use to you is not necessarily “good use” for the human life that was foetus.

Well let's just say we disagree (again :D) so we don't hijack this thread. light year is her to fight my ignorance.

Thank you light year this is very interesting.........I believe I may have been the idiot that said the A word first. I'm all for being educated though :)

[light strand]

I should address the OP.

My problem is not that Laura Bush is speaking on this, she has every right to. My problem is that she is misleading the public, and that she’s not being honest about it.

If she said exactly what Bricker has said, I could at least respect her speech as an opinion. But she states it as fact, and it's wrong!

[Mr. Moto]

Thanks for enlightening me on that point.

Can someone fill me in on adult stem cell research, if they know anything about it? I only have read very general articles about the subject.

I changed from a biochem to a political science major in 1991, so you can see I'm hopelessly behind on these recent developments. ;)

[jsgoddess]

Your argument is eminently practical. But it seems to me equally practical to use the organs of executed criminals... right?

Yet there is something in me that recoils from such a practice. And I'm not the only one.

There is so much political wrangling already in who gets executed and who doesn't that it is scary to add another layer of complexity--another political tool.

And I think many of our current execution methods, ostensibly chosen for their humaneness, would not lend themselves to the donation of the organs. If we trumpet lethal injection, for example, as being a humane method of execution, it's difficult to then switch and say that we're going to go with a less humane method so that we can do a little organ harvesting on the side. (Note: I do not know that lethal injection makes the organs unusable, though I guess that I would guess it to be true or I wouldn't have attempted to use it as an example.)

Of course, I am absolutely opposed to the death penalty, so that influences me.

It should also be noted that I am not morally opposed to fertility treatments that involve the destruction of many embryos, though I continue to find that strong a desire for reproduction, by any means necessary, to be rather scarily single-minded. (Thus speaking as a happily childfree person who, admittedly, doesn't understand the urge for reproduction even when it's easy.)

[BobLibDem]

But why do you assume she is parrotting? It seems equally plausible that she independently agrees with the point of view. Others in this thread - me, for example - have also expressed support for the view Mrs. Bush espoused, but I assume you understand that I'm not parrotting either her or her husband -- that I have independent and (I believe) adequate grounds upon which to base my opinion. (You may, of course, disagree about the adequacy of my grounds, but surely not the independence).

It certainly is possible that it is her own independent sincere belief. But I would be more convinced of that if she ever expressed a view divergent from her husband's on any subject.

Back to abortion: I was mistaken and this is not an abortion issue- my apologies. But some do consider blastocysts to be human, thus the opposition from the right to life faction. I still maintain that much of the opposition is that it might work and create a larger market for blastocysts, which of course would be opposed by those that consider them to be humans with rights.

[Bricker]

It certainly is possible that it is her own independent sincere belief. But I would be more convinced of that if she ever expressed a view divergent from her husband's on any subject.


From USA Today:

While she has often been guarded in revealing her advice to her husband or unwilling to signal a hint of discord, every once in a while she opens up a bit. After Sept. 11, she didn't seem to mind when word got out that she had advised her husband to knock off macho taunts, such as his pledge that Osama bin Laden would be caught "dead or alive."


From CBS:

CBS's John Roberts says, Laura Bush is "the political equivalent of a rock star." "I'm not wild about the term first lady," said the first lady. Roberts says her influence on public policy is "subdued." Laura Bush now says she agrees on Iraq, but disagrees on abortion with her husband.



- Rick

[World Eater]

This is interesting.

"Britain to allow cloning of human embryos"

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5670247/

Bolding mine

LONDON - British scientists said on Wednesday they had received permission to clone human embryos for medical research, thought to be the first such license given in Europe.

Researchers at Newcastle University in northern England will be allowed to create embryos as a source of stem cells to cure diseases, a spokeswoman for the university said

[jsgoddess]

So, wait. Laura Bush is either pro-choice or pro-life with exceptions? I did not know that.

Are there many pro-choice people who are against embryonic stem cell research? If so, I'd be interested to hear their arguments.

[MsRobyn]

Sure.

You do realize, though, that there are other sources for embryonic stem cells, including umbilical cord blood. Perhaps setting up a system where people could donate their umbilical cords could solve this problem.



Such a thing exists, but there are a couple problems.

First, these services are marketed to parents as a means of insurance; if the kid gets sick with something that can be treated with a stem-cell transplant, there is an immediate source of cells. For this reason, some parents reject cord-blood collection as "ghoulish". Depending on the agency, the cord blood can be directed to someone else, but this not true of all agencies.

Second, not all obstetricians are trained to collect cord blood. My own OB had done exactly two collections before mine, which is two more than most OBs do. There is a special procedure that must be followed; it's not as simple as drawing blood into a tube or gathering a part. IIRC, the umbilical cord had to be cut a certain way to ensure the maximum amount of available cord blood. (I could be wrong; I wasn't exactly paying attention at the time.)

Third, the cost of collection and storage isn't cheap. Currently, it's costing around fifty bucks a year to store the cord blood; it cost $25 for the collection kit, and around $750 for the initial processing. We were responsible for these costs. Insurance generally doesn't cover this.

If a system similar to the Red Cross's blood-donation and storage system were developed where there was no cost to the donor family, but the cord blood were "pooled" for anyone's use, I'd have no problems with that.

Robin

[duffer]

dammit. That should read:

Bricker, how do you feel about these embryos being thawed on counter tops because the parents of in vitro fertilized eggs don't want them implanted, don't want them donated to childless couples, and can't donate them to research? What should they do?

Honestly, I can't even get through the rest of the posts before answering this one. light strand you're an asshole.

My wife and I are starting IVF treatment in 2 weeks. This will involve a number of embryos that may be left over if the first few tries work. (Hopefully the first will). Either way, we've decided that any embryos left will be either saved for future use by us, or donated if we decide to not not have more children.

Donating them will help couples that can't have children to still raise a family. I see nothing wrong with that. What of us having a biological child raised by another couple? No compunctions here. We've tried for so long for a family, we'd be honored to help someone else. As long as it isn't you. Thaw out on a counter, indeed. That's a potential child to a couple that can't have one on their own. Again, you're an asshole.

I can only hope you either grow up fast, or are denied adoption. You obviously have no respect for life unless it has the physical characteristics of a human. :rolleyes:

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I can only hope you either grow up fast, or are denied adoption. You obviously have no respect for life unless it has the physical characteristics of a human. :rolleyes:I'd say the same for you, except that your posting history makes it clear that growing up, being mature, and demonstrating intellect are vastly different concepts.

In your little fantasy world, do you imagine that all your little left over embryos will be needed and wanted, and will not sit waiting to be discarded in some fashion? Is there a dearth of other people's embryos waiting for people to adopt (let alone a dearth of actual children waiting to be adopted)? If this fantasy allows you to do what you want to do, so be it. However, don't accuse other people of immaturity or being an asshole.

[duffer]

I'd say the same for you, except that your posting history makes it clear that growing up, being mature, and demonstrating intellect are vastly different concepts.

In your little fantasy world, do you imagine that all your little left over embryos will be needed and wanted, and will not sit waiting to be discarded in some fashion? Is there a dearth of other people's embryos waiting for people to adopt (let alone a dearth of actual children waiting to be adopted)? If this fantasy allows you to do what you want to do, so be it. However, don't accuse other people of immaturity or being an asshole.

Wow, you got me there. Please forgive me for trying to keep in mind couples that may want the help. I'll just say fuck-off to them based on your argument. Based on what I've seen, the embryos are wanted by thousands of infertile couples. But, thanks to your post, I can now feel comfortable keeping them frozen for eternity. We won't have them destroyed, but since they aren't needed in any case, might as well leave them frozen.

Thanks Hentor, you alone have helped to make our decision so much easier.












Asshole.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

So "frozen for eternity" is okay? Well, if you can reconcile that one, more power to you.

By the way, do you think the power to the fridge will stay on for eternity? Brilliant.

[duffer]

So "frozen for eternity" is okay? Well, if you can reconcile that one, more power to you.

By the way, do you think the power to the fridge will stay on for eternity? Brilliant.

Well, if the power goes out forever, I guess we have more to worry about, huh? Are you trying to start some kind of pissing contest? I'm just saying what we're doing. What do you care about it?

[jsgoddess]

Honestly, I can't even get through the rest of the posts before answering this one. light strand you're an asshole.

Wha? Did you read the thread?

That's what happens to many of the embryos now. light strand is asking if that result is better than something else being done with the embryos that will never be allowed to develop. How does that make ls an asshole?

[light strand]

Whoa! duffer, dude I'm not advocating anything but stem cell research for embryos that are being destroyed by the wishes of the people who created them, and have very few options.

I'd appreciate if you go back and read what I wrote in it's entirety before you get to calling me names.

[Bricker]

Insurance generally doesn't cover this.

If a system similar to the Red Cross's blood-donation and storage system were developed where there was no cost to the donor family, but the cord blood were "pooled" for anyone's use, I'd have no problems with that.


This is an excellent idea.

[you with the face]

The arguments for morality that have been raised in this thread do not really offer legitimate support for Bush's restrictive stance towards this issue.

First off, if it bothers the president so much that "human life" will be "murdered" in the pursuit of medical breakthroughs, why isn't he trying to ban or push regulatory restrictions on IVF? Aren't IVF clinics "murdering" hundreds of lives each year, when their customers opt not to store or incubate unused embryos? To be consistent, it seems the president needs to also speak out against IVF just as he speaks out against abortion.

(But wait! Perhaps he is afraid of alienating all of those middle-class infertile couples out there (like duffer?). This would why we hear a lot of about those baby-killin' abortionists, but IVF clinics get hardly any wrath at all.)

Secondly, if morals are at stake, why is it okay to allow federal funding on a few cell lines, but not on more? Why is it ethically permissible to exploit those 21 "human beings", but it is not ethical to exploit more than that? Again, to be consistent with the idea that no human life should be play with under any circumstances (except for war and the death penalty, of course::rolleyes::), it seems that the president needs to take an all or nothing stance. Right now all it looks like is that he is trying to placate camps on both sides of the petri plate.

To the conservatives: "Look, my restrictions put a stop to all those evil-doin' mad scientists who want to run experiments on innocent lil babies!"
To the scientific community: "Look, I've allowed for more federal spending on stem cell research than any other administration!"

And third, it bothers me that the president's opinion on morality stands to affect the future of medical research so strongly. His objections are not grounded on what is in practice in law. Abortion is legal and associated with few regulatory restrictions. IVF is legal and AFAIK, has very little in the way of regulatory restrictions. But the one activity that attempts to make lemonade out of lemons to help other people is considered too immoral for Uncle Sam's wallet?

[rjung]

Am I the only person who finds it ironically amusing that Bush is opposing stem-cell research with the "sanctity of life" argument, after the high number of executions (http://www.bushkills.com/record.html) he presided over while serving as Governor of Texas?

[duffer]

Whoa! duffer, dude I'm not advocating anything but stem cell research for embryos that are being destroyed by the wishes of the people who created them, and have very few options.

I'd appreciate if you go back and read what I wrote in it's entirety before you get to calling me names.

PWE. (posting while emotional) Guilty.

Sorry for the name-calling. It was unwarranted.

[Evil Captor]

I heard yesterday that scientists have discovered that cancers have stem cells that have a lot to do with their growth and their regenerative ability. So stem cell research is also likely to become critical in the fight against cancer.

If I were opposed to stem cell research I'd have that "deer in the headlights" feeling right about now, i.e, :eek: because now they're going to have to oppose cancer research, too. Oh, this is SUCH a losing battle for them. Couldn't happen to a more self-righteous, smarmier bunch of people.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Well, never underestimate the ability for the smarmy self-righteous to engage in major-league rationalization. For example, to be opposed to embryonic stem cell research, one would also have to oppose in-vitro fertilization (at least as it is commonly practiced). As Kevin Drum put it at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com:

As for the moral arguments, let's insist on a full and complete discussion of those too — without the usual shilly shallying and prevaricating. The idea that a 1-week old embryo is a human being has always struck me as depressing: a nihilistically mechanical view of humanity in which DNA + miscellaneous chemicals = human life. Still, it's a fact that some people feel this way. But if they do, then they have to accept the logical consequences of this view in their public speech too: a complete ban on all abortion, all fertility treatments that utilize multiple eggs, and all embryonic stem cell research. Not just a ban on federal funding, but a complete ban. Put that on the table and I think we'd find out pretty quickly how many people really believe that humanity begins at conception.

[Muad'Dib]

Am I the only person who finds it ironically amusing that Bush is opposing stem-cell research with the "sanctity of life" argument, after the high number of executions (http://www.bushkills.com/record.html) he presided over while serving as Governor of Texas?


There is no contradiction between excecuting murderers and wanting to protect the innocent, in fact they are fundimentaly the same thing.

And no, you are hardly the first person to make such an observation.

[Bricker]

Am I the only person who finds it ironically amusing that Bush is opposing stem-cell research with the "sanctity of life" argument, after the high number of executions (http://www.bushkills.com/record.html) he presided over while serving as Governor of Texas?

Maybe. I find it ironic, but not amusing. It's very depressing to find that most of the "pro-life" politicians out there seem to follow that stance only when talking about the unborn. Adults in prison are not human, I guess.

I am firmly convinced of the sanctity of human life, and I oppose the death penalty for that very reason. We can keep prisoners secure and our society safe without killing them.

[Muad'Dib]

Well, never underestimate the ability for the smarmy self-righteous to engage in major-league rationalization. For example, to be opposed to embryonic stem cell research, one would also have to oppose in-vitro fertilization (at least as it is commonly practiced). As Kevin Drum put it at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com:

If you had been reading this thread you would see that many are.