What the fuck does Laura Bush know about stem cells?

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

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

<sigh>

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

Christopher Reeve is going to kick her ass one day.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

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

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

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.

Never said is was anything else.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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? Are you fucking shitting me?

I’m – I dunno – I’m simply stunned.

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?