Just a meaningless slam at the left on this board, that adds nothing to the debate, and probably wrong, too. Democrats would probably feel an additional betrayal, since they’re expectations of a Republican president doing something with which they agree are lower.
I forgot: liberals are all cowardly, craven, hypocritical weasels.
Just a theory.
Doghouse: Man, you’re really going out of your way to set up straw men. I don’t know how you got out of what I said that it was okay to kill children. But the fact remains that we DO treat humans differently at different stages of development. First of all, blastocysts are routinely and legally thrown in the trash at fertility clinics. As they develop in the womb, many countries allow RU-486 to cause them to miscarry. As they develop further, many countries allow first trimester abortions, but not later. In the U.S., a fetus can be legally aborted even if it’s a fully developed baby with its head starting to protrude from the woman’s body.
In fact, 15 senators in the U.S. (all democrats) have voted to allow doctors to KILL a baby if it survives a botched abortion. This is a baby that is alive and completely out of the mother’s body.
As we progress further, we have varying laws against infanticide, child abuse, etc. And children do not gain the full rights of adults until they mature.
At the end of life, people who become senile can lose their rights and become wards of either the state or relatives. Some countries allow euthanasia.
After you die, we treat the body with reverence and care, at least as long as direct relatives and descendents of the deceased are still alive. There are severe penalties for disturbing graves.
After you’ve been dead a long time, we start to be less and less concerned with the body, and we routinely dig them up and use them for scientific experiments.
I see no reason why we have to pick the arbirary point of successful fertilization and suddenly declare that the lumb of cells that just a second ago was nothing is now a legal human with a full set of rights. It just makes no sense. Let the blastocycst start out with no rights at all, and proceed to gain them as it grows and develops through the various stages of existance.
If the research in question has the potential to result in treatments for all sorts of horrible diseases as well as a way to create rejection-proof replacement organs, yes.
If you would deny an Alzheimer’s disease patient much-needed replacement neurons because you have ethical problems as to how they’re produced, you damn well better have some very convincing justification for your beliefs. Thus far, I have never seen anything even close to a rational, scientific argument to the effect that a blastocyst is a human being. People who oppose stem cell research merely because their religions say that humanity begins at conception are, IMO, no better than Jehovah’s Witnesses who let thei rchildren die from blood loss.
Well, RoboDude, the thing about the blood transfusion is that the donor doesn’t die from donating blood. IIUC, the donor (the blastocyst) for embryonic stem cells is destroyed.
Will this decision now be followed by a rule that excess embryos created in fertility labs, but never implanted, must be preserved in perpetuity? To destroy them would be tantamount to murder, following the same moral logic. Introduction of abortion-banning legislation would have to be even more of a moral imperative.
Or maybe this was a baldly political calculation hypocritically (there’s that word again) wrapped in moral trappings? You make the call.
So what’s the ethical alternative, Monty? Implant every blastocyst into a woman and attempt to grow it into a person?
Peace,
mangeorge
I strongly disagree. Did you see him on 20/20 last night?
My favorite quotes:
“Oh, here’s some phone calls I have to make today <dangles single piece of paper on otherwise clean desk in front of reporter> I’ll be calling, umm… probably some world leaders…” Neato!
and this:
“I like my job…serious people come to me, give me information and tell me “Decide”, and then I get to decide!” Oh goody!
This is the president of the greatest nation on earth speaking? God help us.
stoid
I am not a fertility specialist, but I am a Molecular Biologist, so hopefully I can try to answer some of these questions.
Freedom
I’m pretty sure when the cells start to require placental implantation and it can’t get it, and the nutrients that the placenta provides, they will die (I could be wrong).
Freedom
There is no legislation (of which I am aware) to prevent this. In fact, I believe there’s nothing to prevent you from going to your local college newspaper, advertise for a young woman to sell her eggs to you, and fertilize them in a test tube with your sperm, and have that embryo implanted in your sister. But just because you can, doesn’t mean you will.
I imagine that at some point there may be compensation to couples who would like to “donate” embryos left over from IVF (which is very expensive ~$10,000/try). However, there would be no reason for people who don’t want stem cell research to be done on their embryos, to refuse to donate. A better question might be; how do you prevent fertility clinics from donating embryos without the permission of the parents? In other words, say the parents don’t want to pay the storage fee after five years, and request that the embryos be thawed. How do you ensure that the fertility clinic adheres to their wishes? I suppose that kind of dilemma would have to be addressed with legislation. In fact, one of Bush’s criterion for research in the exiting cell lines is the guarantee of informed consent of the parents.
panzermanpanzerman A very nice, thoughtful post.
My problem with this statement is that Federal funding goes toward all kinds of goofy stuff. I happen to think that Missile Defense is a HUGE waste of money (unless we can get the “rogue states” to let us know when they are going to launch, where they will launch from, what the launch trajectory will be, and put a homing beacon in the missile for good measure), and there certainly isn’t a scientific consensus on that issue, but we’re throwing our tax payer dollar at it.
This is a VERY big decision. The cell lines in existence (and apparently the head of the NIH confirmed the number 60) may not be pure, they may not be genetically diverse (there may be some that are actually sub-clones of each other) they are scattered around in five different countries and they may not even pass the restrictions that Bush has place upon them. Also, the NIH is NOT a regulatory organization like the FDA is, it’s a scientific organization. To put them in charge of assuring compliance with this odd ruling is akin to making them the date police…“um, excuse me Dr. Joe Schmuck the Rat Man, was that cell line you’re working on in existence before 9:00pm EST 9 Aug '01?”
Private industry really isn’t that interested in doing initial research. They never have been, and I can’t imagine that they ever will be, it’s far too expensive for what could be very little ROI. Almost invariably private institutions, co-opt a good idea from federal research, perfect it, patent it, and make a fortune off of it. Remember, private industry isn’t quite the same breed as public institutions. We (I work for a private company) don’t generally (read -NEVER) share our research or ideas. We don’t publish, and we don’t post results on the internet. In fact, when we do our presentation for the company once a year, non-employees are not allowed in the building, and the windows are covered. We don’t play well with others. Disseminating information is NOT our forte.
Scientists aren’t quite the misanthropes that the media has made us out to be. We make ethical decisions nearly every day. Is our research for the greater good? Are we treating our animals as humanly as possible? Are we taking our post-docs out for walks on a regular basis?
ElvisL1ves
No this won’t happen because he’s not saying that they can’t be destroyed, just that the federal gov’t won’t help pay for any of the research that could have been done on that embryo.
SPOOFE
This statement is just plain asinine and wrong. I would be even MORE pissed if the Democrats came up with the lame ruling, because I have higher expectations of them.
Now I have a question. Let’s assume that of these 60 cell-lines, 50 of them actually meet the President’s requirements. So now I have 50 cell lines. Of the remaining 40 are actually genetically diverse. Well that’s not so bad, but of the 40 I can only get my hands on 20 because of the huge demand. Now though, because of the huge demand, the institutions that own these cell lines have put a prohibitive price on acquiring them. Now I’m down to ten What happens when I come to a road-block in my research? Do I just chuck it out the window because it doesn’t work on any of the 10 cell lines I am able to afford, or acquire? Should I assume it’s doesn’t work and waste your tax payer dollar? What about if I have a break through? Can I assume that it works on all because it works on one, or two, or ten? These are the problems that this decision has created. Hopefully it’ll get sorted out.
I understand that the President was trying to compromise, but I wish he would have just said no federal funding and have allowed it to go to Congress, where I believe it would have stood a better chance. The reason this decision hurts so much, is because it has made it far more difficult to actually get better (IMHO) legislation passed.
I sure do hate it when politicians get involved in Science.
Relax, mangeorge. I’m not a fundie, an ultra-conservative, nor even a flamin’ liberal. I’ve no idea what the ethical solution would be.
Spoofe my darling [sub](you loooooooove me)[/sub] I’d just like to take this opportunity to point out that you, and a few of your right wing cohorts, are MUCH worse about making ridiculous assertions about anyone and everyone on the left than I or my SD leftie brothers and sisters have ever been about making assertions about the entire right. This is but one example. Little dumps like this pop up all over the place around here, and very few of them get busted. (Kinda the way Democrats in Congress let Republicans in Congress shit all over them and get away with murder. We’re wimps, I confess.)
It is rude, because it essentially says: “Every Democrat is completely lacking in integrity.” It’s also just a dumb thing to say.
And while I cannot and will not go digging for cites, this is hardly the first time.
It’s a “think item” you might want to keep around when posting, eh?
stoid
I’ve been thinking about what would have been politically possible for this President, while allowing as much funding as possible. I think this speech would have had a chance:
Whaddya think? That was just off the top of my head, but would something similar have flown? Would this have sent the pro-life people bananas? Would scientists have a problem with this?
One thing I don’t understand from the pro-life camp: If they are so fired up about the humanity of a blastocyst, why the hell aren’t they fighting to have fertility treatments stopped? How come they’ll let an embryo be thrown in the garbage without a peep, but if you want to use it to advance science suddenly there is a moral outcry? I just don’t get it.
Wouldn’t work, Sam - there’s no way to delay a decision that you’ve defined as fundamentally a moral one by putting the trappings of bureaucracy and utilitarianism on it. A statement like the one you suggest would have been thought to be even worse weaseling than the one he did make.
Only by redefining the moral issue from “Thou shalt not kill” to “Thou shalt preserve as many lives as possible” (sounds similar at first, but has very different practical consequences) would it have a chance - and even then, the conclusion would have to be to go all out for stem cell research without restrictions.
A step in the right direction? Yep.
Right pot of money? Nope.
I don’t believe there’s any Constitutional basis for Uncle Sugar coughing up the $250mil or so for the research. It seems to me that this particular decision, solely from the standpoint of who’s paying the bill and who’ll make the profit, was beyond the scope of government. In the big scheme of things $240mil is chump change for investors who will potentially make billions in profit.
Now, with this decision to fund this particular research, I’d look for lots more research groups (some will be valid, many will be wackos) comin’ out of the woodwork for their federal funding “entitlement”.
That is your money and my money the President is tossing around.
The $250 million figure that was mentioned, was ear-marked for adult stem-cell research. As far as I know, there hasn’t been a figure thrown around for embryonic research.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I am not setting up a straw man, I’m just trying to clarify the meaning of your post. You said that a sliding scale of rights applies to people throughout their development, to wit:
I think it’s reasonable for me to assume that you intend to indicate that the level of rights go up at each “stage”: that an infant has a higher degree of rights than a fetus, that a child has a higher degree than an infant, and so on, up to an adult. Moreover, you claim that the law currently recognizes this sliding scale. Now, I’m asking you to prove this incredible assertion. Where does it say anywhere, on the books of any jurisdiction, that the age of an already-born human victim should a mitigating circumstance in the trial of his or her murderer–that the right of an infant to draw breath is somehow less than the right of an adult?
And I’m interested in your response to my other followup question–what gives you, or any scientist or doctor–the ability to determine that a cadaver should have some emotional attachment surrounding it but a fetus shouldn’t? You seem to admit that the question lies outside the realm of science in the first question, but then keep going on about a “scientific basis” in the second.
But we’re not talking about a blastocyst or a fetus sticking up a liquor store, we’re talking about whether it has the “right” to keep on living. Now, I am not a lawyer, but I think you’re confusing some legal principles here. Agreed, a child is generally not tried as an adult because his age is recognized as a mitigating circumstance, but how does that affect the child’s own rights under the constitution? I can’t imagine that a prosecuting attorney would stand up and say, “Your honor, the defendant is only five years old–he really shouldn’t be entitled to defending counsel”.
I read Sam Stones post as saying something more or less along these lines–that even outside of a womb, we recognize some individuals as more “human” than others, with an attendant “sliding scale” of human rights. You can call it a straw man if you want to, but I’d like to see some support for this chilling rationalization.
Doghouse , according to what I read, Sam made the point that ‘we treat people differently at different stages of development’ and that’s absolutely the truth.
You then, attempted to re-direct his statement into ‘it’s ok to kill children’, which isn’t at all what he said, implied or anything else.
So, what you did was set up a ‘straw man’ argument, mischaracterizing his point into something easily defeated. Classic example, really.
And to expound on the ‘we treat folks differently’, not only do we treat juveniles differently when they’re accused of a crime (of couse that’s getting less and less of a point, but I digress), but we treat it differently when they’re victims. (there are laws that allow for greater penalties if the victim is under a certain age or over another age for example).
Something curious about this 60 cell-lines business:
http://www.salon.com/politics/wire/2001/08/10/scientist_stem/index.html
IMO Unless there is a world government now, I wondered were Bush got the idea that that number was good to use in the context of federal funding.
Many articles have said there is only about 12 lines in the US. Not enough to continue with more research that nationally based labs say is necessary.
I think this decision looks fuzzier on close examination.
DR: Wring’s response pretty much says it all. What you did was a classic example of a strawman argument.
You did it again with respect to my statement about how we treat the dead.
This is what I said:
Your response was:
I never used ‘science’ say that they are wrong. In fact, for the reading impaired, which you appear to be, I specifically said that the issue was NOT scientific, but rather emotional. In case you haven’t noticed, many of our laws proscribe behaviours that we as a society simply find distasteful. Laws against bestiality, corpse disfigurement, grave robbing, etc. We have set up a society that makes us feel comfortable. Not many humans like the thought that their bodies can be used for target practice or rape or anything else after they die. We feel that we have the right to insist that our bodies are treated with respect even after we are gone. There is nothing ‘scientific’ about this. There’s no question that we are dead and our bodies are merely a hunk of decaying flesh and bones. But it’s disturbing to us at a very fundamental level, and therefore the disposal of corpses goes to fundamental human needs.
Well, that would be rude. But the fact is, we don’t consider the failure to implant a blastocyst to be as emotionally devastating as callous treatment of the body of a loved one. I don’t claim to speak for women, so I don’t know how they feel about losing something like that. But I’d hazard a guess that the emotional pain felt has to do with losing something that was growing in your body, and that you had come to expect would be your child soon. If the blastocyst is cultured in a petri dish, and then discarded after another one successfully implants, there doesn’t seem to be that emotional attachment. In fact, since people who go to fertility clinics have them discarded all the time with no apparent regard for them, I’d have to say that all the evidence we have is that I’m right.
Then you go on to say this:
Well, that’s an extreme characterization, and you’re coming close to that straw-man argument again, because I specifically said that IF a blastocyst is developed with the intention of implanting it in the womb to create a child, then right from square one it should be treated with all the reverence with which we treat other children, simply because this is our way of taking extra care to make sure it gets everyting it needs to give it the best start in life.
As for how we treat humans at different stages, how can you claim we don’t when the U.S. and Canada allow legal abortions? Clearly, we have decided at some point that fetuses are not humans with rights. And frankly, I think we go way to far with that. When I hear horror stories about doctors giving women drugs to halt labor in order to give them time to kill the fetus that is being delivered, I shudder. But that’s the result of the same kind of absolutist thinking that says that it’s murder to destroy a petri dish full of undifferentiated cells. Both extremes are nutty, if you ask me. Which is why I would call for a sliding scale of rights from the point of fertilization until birth. And that’s not an extreme concept - any country that allows first trimester abortions but not second and third has done exactly that.
Oh I’m quite relaxed, Monty.
But I did re-read my post. I guess I did come across as a little strident. Sorry, didn’t mean to. 
Anyway, I’m approaching the age when all my parts seem to be wearing out. And in my narrow vision I see the choice as being between throwing away cells or growing me a new ticker. Or whatever. A cure for diabetes would sure be nice.
Peace,
mangeorge (Old Liberal)