But surely, while the oppurtunity is there, it’s not an unreasonable thing to do? You can continue to campaign to stop the creation of these fetuses in the first place, but while they are being created, what is the harm? Is the removal of stem cells in itself an immoral act?
It would serve the bastard right if he got Alzheimer’s disease and there was no cure because of this. I wouldn’t wish Alzheimer’s on anyone, but it would be poetic justice.
Eureka, I also heard this story on NPR when I was driving home. I also read about IVF recently, including the number of extra embryos created and implanted. I’m not entirely thrilled about it myself, but I’ve never been in the position of desperately wanting a child of my own.
Here’s my problem with Mr. Bush’s veto. We have this life which we have deliberately created. These embryos are just going to be thrown away like yesterday’s newspaper. If they’re used for stem cell research, then there’s at least a chance that, rather than being treated as a useless by-product of human desire, they might actually do some good. If we discard them as we currently do, whatever life and potential they have is lost. If we can use them, some good may come of this.
By the way, I agree with John Mace. I don’t think Mr. Bush is doing this to score points with the Religious Right; I think he’s acting out of a sincere conviction that using these embryos is as much a destruction of and insult to life as torturing someone to death would be. (Please, no Gitmo comments.) I also disagree with his conviction.
Understood, and good for you. Your entitlement to make that choice for other people comes from where, exactly?
Like, the cure for cancer for example?
Cite that this will lead to more and more embryos being created? In order for that to happen, you’d have to find a) more infertile couples willing to undergo IVF (not a pleasant treatment, incidentally) and giving up those embryos for stem cell research instead of for their own reproduction. Cite that all other forms of research will be neglected? You seem remarkably ill informed about how medical research works. They don’t give up other areas just because they’ve found a new method.
No, more like “This is a tremendous opportunity to benefit not only our own population, but the population of many civilized countries and make a boat load of money in the process.” What, you think research comes cheap? In case you hadn’t noticed, we don’t have a state funded health program. That means the money has to come from the private sector. That means our healthcare programs are getting worse, not better.
Understandable. And you don’t sound either callous or flippant. But could you expound on how it’s murder to kill something that’s already dead?
So there is a justification for this. A justification that makes absolutely no sense to me, but there you go.
I didn’t realize curing cerebral palsy was a moral “wrong.”
We do, however, harvest organs from humans who are killed by other circumstances and use those organs to prolong the life of others. How is this different?
The fact that the embryos were slated to be destroyed in any case is the most nonsensical part of this ridiculousness.
I can hear the chorus now:
“Every sperm is sacred…”
Is it November yet?
I’m not necessarily supporting the veto; but, the bill encompassed more than just the embryos to which you refer.
And condemning people to suffering and death in the name of being “pro-life” isn’t ?!
And if we don’t look, we’ll never know. Your “argument” amounts to a demand for the end of all science.
“Ignorance is bliss” ? Ignorance is not a virtue.
:dubious: And how is this “extreme” ? Your arguement, again, can be used against any and all research.
Well, you failed.
Does anyone have a link to the text of the bill?
Are you certain?
Bill H.R. 810
Yes, which I should have put in my earlier post. :smack: Here;
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:5:./temp/~c109VweG2E::
I should also say that the bolding in my earlier post was by me.
From a quick view of some conservative blogs, those who support the veto seem to be taking two tacks:
- Calling the bill the “embryo-destroying” bill (apparent effort to cast it as tantamount to abortion).
- Calling the bill “pork.”
Now, #2 may well be true, for all I know, but that wasn’t the stated reason for the veto, now was it?
Hm. Mince, it seems that the only thing that bill addresses is embryos specifically harvested for IVT. Maybe you were thinking of one of the other two bills on this subject?
You’re afraid of learning?
If that is his sincere conviction, he’s arrived at it in a half-assed fashion. If stem cell research is so morally reprehensible, why was Bush willing in 2001 to allow some federal funding for embryonic research on the stem cell lines that had already been created?
I think the Religious Right is only slightly pleased with his veto. What many of them want is a complete and total ban on all public or private embryonic stem cell research.
Warning: We are about at the limit of my comfort zone. I’m not feeling inclined to quit reading the thread, as yet, but I may decide to quit responding to questions or comments directed towards me.
I can’t detail for you a specific “harm” caused by stem cell research. I’m deeply, deeply, uncomfortable with the "Well, they’re there, why not use them"attitude towards embryos that your post (and others) seem to support. I’m not sure, but I lean very heavily towards “yes, the removal of stem cells is in itself an immoral act.”.
Siege,
I don’t want you to think that I didn’t read your post. I did, and I appreciate your viewpoint, and I do not agree. I understand the emotional pull of maybe someday this research could do some good, but I’m just not sold.
I am a Christian, and I am NOT a believer in moral relativism. Therefore, if something is wrong for me, it is wrong for everyone, and I am obligated to discourage others from doing the wrong thing.
If the cure for cancer is anything like present treatments for cancer, maybe.
Seriously, my mother had cancer, and because it was caught in the early stages, she suffered far more from the surgery and the chemotherapy than she did from the tumor. I’m not claiming this is the norm, but there certainly do exist cases where I have to wonder whether spending the last 6 months of one’s life being treated for cancer is better than spending the first 6 weeks of that time dying, and then having the ordeal be over.
No cite available. It comes straight from the “what’s the worst that could happen” file in my brain.
Nope. 'Cause I don’t see that that’s true. I’m also not sure where I’ve used the word “murder”.
Yeah, ok. I missed it. I apologize.