The Hypocrisy of Bush's Position on Stem Cell Research

Then we’ll have to agree to disagree since you seem to define hypcrisy diferently than I do. Being silent is not the same as speaking out. In fact, he’d really only be hypocrit if he spoke out about abortion and then agreed for his wife to have one. The OP is trying to point out an instance of inconsistency, not of hypocrisy, but I don’t even see the inconsistency.

But supposing that abortion **were **made illegal. It would also follow that the destruction of embryos in IVF would also be illegal. So, where is the inconsistency?

cite? I have no idea, but I doubt it.

Oh for goodness sake, John Mace, read the cite in the OP. Bush talks about the destruction of embryos as a result of in vitro three times, and each time it is in the context of a unavoidable side effect of the process, “which helps so many couples conceive children”. If you think he is against it, it is encumbent on you to produce evidence of that. From the quotes I cited, it is clear that Bush accepts the destruction of embryos during in vitro.

Nope. He’s just stating a fact. Under current law, there is no way to stop them from being destroyed. He never says he thinks this is a good idea or even a neutral idea. He specifically says that this is sticky ethical issue. And from that WH memo (my bolding):

Why do you think he’s saying that? Why do you think he is saying he will not cross that “fundamental moral line”?

The real trouble with the anti-embryonic-stem-cell-research argument is that it’s based on an argument that was decided a quarter century ago.

IVF (currently) can only maximize the possibility of fertilization if many embryos are created for potential implantation. However, it is unlikely that the mother would wish every embryo created to be implanted.

Therefore, once treatment is done, clinics are left with embryos, most of which are discarded.

With the discovery of stem cells and their importance in tissue development, there is at last a reason to keep these unused embyros around.

Now opponents of the research wish to turn back the clock 25 years. If they believe, as they say they do, that life begins at conception, then every unused microscopic ball of embryonic cells has the same rights as the mother, if not more.

If they have their way, and get legisation, Supreme Court decisions, or, Og help us, an amendment passed stating that life begins at conception, then fertility clinics will be forced to maintain freezing systems for an ever-growing number of unused cells (at whose expense?) or shut down. The discarding of these embryos could suddenly become a criminal murder offense.

In any event, you would expect to see the operation of a fertility clinic become a highly unattractive proposition in this country, and couples who could not afford to go abroad to conceive would be forced to remain childless.

Fortunately, Bush obviously does not believe in his heart that life begins at conception. If he did, he would never in a million years have countenanced continuing research into stem cell lines from embryos already destroyed, as they would, by any logic, be fruit of the poison tree (assuming of course that we can take at face value his claims to have a deeply stubborn moralism at the core of his stalwart character ).

Those who thought he DID believe that life begins at birth will have to admit that they believed an untruth as a result of some claims Bush has made in the past.

But, then, that’s par for the course now, isn’t it?

The trouble is, from what Bush says, we don’t know where that line is! Are embryos sacred life or not? If you look at his position on abortion they are, but why then doesn’t he attack in vitro with the same zeal? Could it be that he knows his female base would evaporate if he equated in vitro with abortion?

I have no idea. He certainly is going against the grain in the whole stem cell issue, since polls show the vast majority of Americans support it. Do you really think there are that many religeous conservatives out there who are using IVF that Bush is afraid of losing their votes? I doubt it.

It’s pretty easy to find issues that Bush (or most any politician) is hypocritical about. Steel tariffs are one obvious one. This is a stretch, since Bush has not stated his opinion.

Cite?

Full exploration of its benefits? That seems really optimistic to me.

A lot of the potential cures being currently funded by federal research dollars might be appealing to private investors. But the U.S. has elected not to leave it in the hands of private investors alone. Public investment in research has numerous benefits. For one thing, it ensures that both basic and applied research gets done (not all private funders can wait for the long-term payoff associated with basic research). It also increase the chances that projects will be pursued (and funded) on their scientific merits, not just their future chances for monetary profits. Some diseases and public health issues are important and worth researching, even if they don’t seem to promise a return to private investors.

Federal dollars also help to leverage private investment in research.

It’s true that there is some private sponsorship of stem cells, just like there is private sponsorship of other research areas. With stem cells, however, the federal government has gone further than just saying they won’t fund it. They don’t want scientists using any lab equipment ever paid for by federal research dollars (unless it’s on those few, tainted, limited-use approved stem cell lines). There goes the leveraging of private dollars. You want to do stem cell research with private dollars, you’ve got to start almost from scratch.

I was contrasting his positions about stem cells and IVF. Suppose he believes abortion is wrong only after implantation (and I have no reason to believe he doesn’t) then his position on abortion is not inconsistent with anything else.

However if he believes harvesting embryos for stem cell research is murder, since it destroys them at that early stage, then if not speaking out against the murder committed by IVF is morally indefensible. Either he sees some difference (and what that is I’d like to know), he never thought about it (unfortunately possible) or he is not speaking out for political expediency, which is hypocritical.

It all depends on what the definition of abortion is. IUDs were not banned when abortion was illegal. Plus, I’d wonder if Roe v Wade would be applicable to attempts to ban IVF, since there is no privacy issue, the eggs having been removed already.
There is a ban on federal funding for IVF research, though, but not IVF itself. So, I rather suspect he would come out against it, but is being quiet for political reasons.

BTW, I did some research on IVF, and it seems half of frozen embryos don’t survive being thawed, so IVF does almost certainly result in the death of at least some embryos.

If you remember, the ban on “late term” abortions was overturned by a lower court because it did not have any provision for abortions to preserve the life of the mother. That was Kerry’s objection to the ban in the debate, and you remember Bush’s response of answer yes or no.