Bush allows limited stem-cell funding... [Archive]

MadMax

08-10-2001, 07:14 AM

Wow...i'm really suprised that people are actually criticizing Bush on this one. You know he comes from a set of values which put a high emphasis against abortion. You know that those who share that same set of values make up a large portion of those who put him in office. You know this was something he probably really struggled with. You know the Catholics were putting serious heat on him to abandon this stuff altogether....yet, he doesn't. He finds a middle ground. This is exactly the kind of approach that won so much praise for Bill Clinton. I thought the decision was pretty wise. If you truly believe that this is life...and Bush does...it's hard to argue other wise. Sure, you might disagree with the conclusion that an embryo is life....but surely you must see that if one does believe it's life, he paints himself a murderer if he allows these lives to be harvested like this.

rimbaud

08-10-2001, 08:57 AM

Max,

He knew that if he withdrew funding completely, it would be political suicide. the most recent poll I saw was about 60-25-15 as far as for-against-don't know for federally funded research.

Also, abortion seems to be very much a different issue, as many who oppose abortion support embryonic stem cell research.

mc mark

08-10-2001, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by rimbaud
Also, abortion seems to be very much a different issue, as many who appose abortion support enbryonic stem cell research.

Ah subjective moralism, you gotta love it!

Rocketman95

08-10-2001, 01:28 PM

I'm still not clear why abortion is even brought into this debate. I've never heard a pro-choice advocate say "a woman should have the right to choose, so we could use the embryo for stem cell research".

Getting rid of this research which could potentially save millions of lives doesn't make any sense to me. If Bush would've cut funding (thank God he didn't), abortions wouldn't have been cut. They are two separate issues.

Anyway, I dare you to look someone in the face, someone like my girlfriend whose Dad is dying of Alztheimers at the ripe old age of 53, and tell her that a dead embryo is more important than her Dad.

MadMax

08-10-2001, 01:43 PM

Rocketman -- your last sentence is exactly why the same issues involved in the abortion debate surface here.....follow this logic....i dare you to ask your girlfriend's dad how many lives have to be snuffed out to heal him. Though you may disagree, many feel that these embryos are lives. That's why many approach the issue from the "when does life become life" that we also see in abortion debates.

I think that I think Bush made the right call here. Ultimately, these issues are almost too weighty for me. I don't mean to say I'm not smart enough to get them....but only that maybe no man is wise enough to be making decisions on these kinds of things. Achebe, notwithstanding...at least in his own mind! I just think making decisions like this most be awfully humbling. I don't think I'd want to be in that position.

Rocketman95

08-10-2001, 01:59 PM

Well, if the "living" embryos (which I don't think they are) were "killed" for that reason, then I would tend to agree with you.

However, abortion isn't even relevant to this discussion. Doing away with embyronic stem cell research will not do away with abortion, it won't even make a dent in the war against it.

So, no one's come even close to giving me close to a good argument as to why we shouldn't try to find cures to horrible diseases using this proven method.

Desert Scar

08-10-2001, 02:11 PM

It was the best call politically he could do, and the "most favorable" position toward stem cell research I was hoping for out of him (though I admit I haven't studied specifics yet). He certainly wasn't going to be perceived seen as "more liberal" on the issue than Clinton--who didn't exactly open the flood gates on such research.

I don't know where anyone gets out of it that Bush is less policatically expediant than Clinton. In fact they both staked out very similar positions on this issue. On clear loser issues, they both would dodge the issues as much as possible whether it was ideologically consistent or not with their beliefs (e.g., "Don't ask, don't tell"-which Clinton's admin put in place but Bush's hasn't touched either, this above issue). They are both pragmatists for the most part, not ideologues. Bush pretty much chooses a middle ground issue on most things--or tries to be perceived personally in such a way, the problem is his appointees who invoke a lot of the policies are more ideological. That is why we need to get him out of there ASAP.

bobrek

08-10-2001, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Rocketman95

...So, no one's come even close to giving me close to a good argument as to why we shouldn't try to find cures to horrible diseases using this proven method.

What proven method? Stem Cell research has yet to provide any proven methods. (That does not mean that it won't eventually provide help)

There is no argument you would accept. As long as folks do not believe that life begins at conception then they can't see how destroying the embryo is killing a life.

If folks do believe that life begins at conception, then you can see how destroying the embryo is the same as abortion. In both cases a life is being snuffed out.

ZRB

08-10-2001, 03:54 PM

The idea that people would rather save the life of an embryo than a living, breathing, self-sustaining human is laughable.

Embryos can not survive on their own. Until they become more than a combination of cells dependant on the mother, they have no rights. Let the mothers donate their embryos as they please. Better that, then simply discarding them and helping no one.

MadMax

08-10-2001, 10:38 PM

ZRB -- .....says you!! intelligent people disagree with you....intelligent people also agree with you. It's not as simple, quite clearly, as just saying the other side of the argument is "laughable." It's not at all laughable to those who believe that you're harvesting life to sustain other lives. I don't want anyone to die so that I can be healthy. If I or others believe that these embryos are living beings then certainly you're bright enough to see how there could be disagreement.

By the way...most children are dependent on a mother for life for many years...this is true among all animals (see baby birds who wait in nest for mother to return with food)...does that make them any less living? We're all just a "combination of cells." In a very crass, physical and temporal view of the world, that's all we ever are. I believe there is more purpose than that...I believe you don't have to be independent to have worth or value. I realize those views come from my theology. But please....never ever again come complaining about environmental issues...never tell me about endangered species or clubbing seals or any of that bull$$it. Because coming from someone with so little regard for those who are "dependent" on others for their very sustinence, it rings hollow.

Rocketman - now do you see how the abortion arguments play into this?? ZRB is making the exact same arguments i hear in abortion threads from pro-choice folks...."just a combination of cells"..."can't survive without the mother." The question comes down to whether these are living beings...if they are, certainly they have the same inherent rights that more developed humans do. If that is true, I'm guessing taking their cells for the benefits of others is a tort under the law.

ZRB

08-10-2001, 11:07 PM

It has not been proven that embryos are alive, but we know that people with spinal injuries, or MS are.

An infant could survive without it's natural mother, but a fetus, and an embryo, could not.

If they are going to die anyway, shouldn't they be put to good use?

MadMax

08-11-2001, 07:22 PM

An embryo CAN survive without it's natural mother...it could be implanted in another woman's uterus...in the same way, a child doesn't have to have it's natural mother care for it....but it better have someone step up to that role or it won't survive.

I'm not comfortable with "i don't know if it's alive, so let's just destroy it." Sorry.

Finally....your last sentence indicates you agree with Pres. Bush. Yes...if they're going to be discarded anyway, then we should allow stem cell research from that group of embryos...once the decision on life and death for the embryo has already been made...but creating embryos specifically for the purpose of destroying them for the sake of research is greatly troubling to me, as clearly it was with the President.

ZRB

08-11-2001, 08:36 PM

I love the way most conservatives are happy to kill anything that walks on four legs for fun, but shudder at the thought of killing a brainless, non-sentient collection of cells.

bobrek

08-11-2001, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by ZRB
I love the way most conservatives are happy to kill anything that walks on four legs for fun, but shudder at the thought of killing a brainless, non-sentient collection of cells.

I sincerely doubt that most conservatives kill animals for fun. Again, people that believe that life begins at conception consider that "non-sentient collection of cells" life. We were all that "non-sentient collection of cells" at one point. I love the way you compare the beginning of human life to animals.

ZRB

08-11-2001, 08:55 PM

I guess I don't have the "human superiority complex". I think living animals are far more deserving of protection than embryos. You realize that embryos don't even have brains, don't you? Without brains, they have no awareness. Without awareness, they are no more alive than plants. If killing something that is no more alive than a virus helps actual living people, I'm all for it.

bobrek

08-11-2001, 09:32 PM

I'm human. I'm superior to animals and proud of it!

ZRB

08-11-2001, 10:10 PM

It seems clear that this argument is fueled by religion, so I'm out. I'm not in the mood for religious debates. I'll end my argument by saying that I would gladly destroy an embryo to save a life, and that I hope a democratic president in 2005 will have half a brain, and allow this research to go full steam ahead.

WasabiTheNinjaPimp

08-11-2001, 10:51 PM

slippery slope man, slippery slope. we start with embreyos, then move on to slightly more developed embreyos, then anything within the first trimester, then second, then up to full term, then we move onto those who aren't useful in society (the very young, the very old, the handicapped, eventually anyone who isn't productive, [or doesn't agree with the popular views]).

That's why we have to be very careful about things like this, because humanity CAN'T be trusted to do the right thing and to know when to stop.

WasabiTheNinjaPimp

08-11-2001, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by ZRB
I think the man is a wuss. Good move politically, but I don't think people suffering from horiffic diseases will care about that. I suppose that next they'll try to save sperm from destruction.

/~ EVERY SPERM IS SACRED, EVERY SPERM IS SACRED ~/

..... let's see who knows where that's from :)

MadMax

08-12-2001, 09:25 AM

I'm somewhat concerned with your callous regard for potential life, ZRB. I've argued with others here about abortion, but few have come off with the sort of zeal for the destruction of embryos you seem to have.

Please tell me you're kidding on the whole valuing an animal's life versus the potential life of a human thing. Awareness??? How much awareness does a snail have? Or a fish? It's called the food chain, my friend. It absolutely disgusts me to hear people champion abortion rights while at the same time going to war for the lives of f###ing seals!!! It's that kinda logic that seriously diminishes the ability of animal rights folks to make serious in-roads into the political mainstream of this nation. Valuing the lives of animals above humans is just outright freaky and unnatural. So keep up the good work!

mc mark

08-12-2001, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by WasabiTheNinjaPimp

/~ EVERY SPERM IS SACRED, EVERY SPERM IS SACRED ~/

..... let's see who knows where that's from :)

Monty Python's "Meaning of Life"

I just have something to add about what Dubya didn't tell us.

According to him and his "experts" there are about 60 fully developed stem cell lines that he will continue funding. Good for him!

Now let's talk about those 60 stem cell lines.

Doctors from Harvard University were quoted as saying that they were "surprised" at the number of stem cell lines available for research. In fact, according to the leading American researchers on stem cell study there are only 12 lines that are funded by the US government.

Where are the rest?

Privately owned by different companies around the world. Anyone care to guess if these lines and research will be shared among these private companies? In fact American scientist estimate that there are less than 30 of these lines available for study in the US.

This is what Dubya is not telling us.

And contrary to what he says, these lines are NOT infinite. In fact scientist estimate that a healthy stem cell line would yield no more than 2 to 3 years of possible study.

What happens after these lines die off? You guessed it! That’s the end of funding. But of course Dubya isn’t telling us that the government is only concerned about those 12 lines that the government funds.

Rocket River

08-12-2001, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by ZRB
I guess I don't have the "human superiority complex". I think living animals are far more deserving of protection than embryos. You realize that embryos don't even have brains, don't you? Without brains, they have no awareness. Without awareness, they are no more alive than plants. If killing something that is no more alive than a virus helps actual living people, I'm all for it.

Plants are alive
anything not 'animal' [or already born] should be kill indescriminately

Question: What if the research says baby in the second trimester
help? Third?

Or that they need Stems from embryoes with similar genetic
material like transplants. . a good donor?

The problem is folx look into those issues.
I've heard of people having a second child to be a donor
for their 1st child. i think that is sick. I understand but
I don't like it. But of course. . .people getting pregnant
to do this. . .well that is the slippery slope folx want to avoid

Rocket River

BrianKagy

08-12-2001, 08:52 PM

Well, I think it's pretty obvious how anyone with more than two brains cells to rub together would feel about this issue.

You ****ing idiots, there is only ONE WAY to think about this issue.

THERE IS NO ROOM for intelligent debate about it-- you can have only one position, and if you have anything less than 100% fanatical support of that position, **** YOU and your grandmother and your entire family for ever drawing air on this planet. The ****ing Nazis thought the way you did, and surely you don't want to be compared to them? DO YOU? No, of course not. So obviously, now, you agree with me, since unless you say you do, I will compare you to them, you ****ing Gestapo worm.

If you haven't come around to my position, you are evil, twisted, child molestor quality scum of the earth, and I would gladly kill you with my bare hands if only given the permission. You are worse than the KKK, worse than NAMBLA, worse than Bill Clinton, worse than Rush ****ing Limbaugh. You should have been aborted before your mother could puke from morning sickness even once.

I wish nothing but pain and suffering to people who differ from me on this issue, bunch of brain dead masturbating zombies. I don't consider them people-- they disagree with me, and that can't be allowed, so I will simultaneously ridicule and condemn their ideas. I mean, come on-- THEIR IDEAS ARE DIFFERENT AND GODDAMNIT, something that DIFFERS FROM ME IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!

Now, since this thread has inched towards an area I don't care for personally, I will leave it, having made a valuable contribution to the discourse.

ZRB

08-12-2001, 09:03 PM

I am COMPLETELY serious Madmax. I don't care about potential life, I care about LIFE. Embryos mean nothing to me. I would destroy as many as needed to save a life. And you know what? I wouldn't give it a second thought. Fetuses and infants are different. Although I support abortion, I wouldn't clone fetuses simply to kill them. Embryos are just advanced cells.

RichRocket

08-12-2001, 09:16 PM

My father died in June of complications due to Parkinson's Disease and who was adamant about not benefiting from embryonic stem cell research.

bobrek

08-12-2001, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by ZRB
...Although I support abortion, I wouldn't clone fetuses simply to kill them. Embryos are just advanced cells.

I don't recall seeing many folks say they actually support abortion. Most of the pro-choicers I have heard or read cop out and say that they do not support abortion but support the woman's right to choose (although they are one and the same since there is nothing else that the woman can choose to do).

Rocketman95

08-12-2001, 09:33 PM

Wow Kagy, very good impression of the majority of pro-lifers.

MadMax

08-12-2001, 11:40 PM

Rocketman -- I think Kagy's post was actually directed towards me. I said that valuing animal life above human life was outright freaky and unnatural. I'll stand by that position, criticism notwithstanding...I find it unnatural. I suppose I should be more "tolerant" and accepting of everything I don't agree with. But there are certain things that I believe strongly enough in to call a spade a spade on...at least through my frame of reference.

Z -- wow!!! you don't believe in killing infants??? i think you're on your way to a whole load of humanitarian awards!! :D
I'm sorry, but the day our society values the life of a chicken over the life of a developing human is the day I cash out my chips, move to Montana and bunker down for the Apocalypse. Again...the combination of cells thing only plays so far...at our essence, we are all just a combination of cells.

tacoma park legend

08-12-2001, 11:50 PM

How ironic........

Major

08-12-2001, 11:59 PM

Most of the pro-choicers I have heard or read cop out and say that they do not support abortion but support the woman's right to choose (although they are one and the same since there is nothing else that the woman can choose to do).


Huh? Did I miss something? Is having a child now illegal? Are all pregnant women now required to have abortions? I was under the impression that women currently have a choice between having a child or having an abortion. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

ZRB

08-13-2001, 12:12 AM

Embryos are not human life. They may have potential to become human life, but they are not humans at that stage.

Do I like abortion? No. Do I fully support children NOT being brought up by parents who aren't ready, and a woman's right to choose? Yes.

Madmax- you strike me as the type who would keep a person alive, even if they became a mindless vegetable. That is essentially what embryos are. Vegetables.

RichRocket

08-13-2001, 08:57 AM

ZRB: if the "mindless vegetables" are nourished and protected over time they will become giggling children and eventually young lovers and finally geezers

They definitely have a future if IT'S NOT TAKEN AWAY.

rimbaud

08-13-2001, 10:11 AM

I see that this has followed the path of predictability...the big bad abortion argument. Wow, how clever and original.

Again, this is a different issue.

Here is a question for those arguing against abortion as to the sanctity of life, etc...

What is the possibility, or potential, of an embryo becoming human if it is in the garbage?

This is the real issue. For the past 20 or so years (since fertility clinics began practicing), embryos have been discarded, thrown away. this year alone, it is said that some 300,000 embryos will be thrown away.

So, what are the odds that they will become human?

Is a current human life worth more than garbage? Max couldn't believe the stupidity of putting a higher value on animal life over an embryo...what about a full human life over garbage?

Now, if you think that throwing away an embryo is murder...wher have you been the last 20 years? Why have you not protested fertility clinics?

Notice I did not mention abortion in my argument?

MadMax

08-13-2001, 11:13 AM

rimbaud -- i think you misunderstand me....i agree with you. if the embryos are simply going to be discarded or thrown away...if a decision on their life or death has already been made...then i agree, go ahead and use it for stem cell research.

Z - i don't think the vegetable thing is a very good analogy to this situation. closing out one's life as a vegetable carries with it very little dignity and a whole lot of suffering for the person and those who love him/her. preserving an embryo because of its FUTURE is in no way like that...the same concerns aren't implicated.

WasabiTheNinjaPimp

08-13-2001, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Rocketman95
Wow Kagy, very good impression of the majority of pro-lifers.

heh, I thought it was the perfect description of the majority of the left.

BrianKagy

08-14-2001, 08:22 PM

I would really like to know how anyone could disagree with me on this one. I just don't see how anyone could disagree with me.

If they do, they're like racists.

There's only one way to think on this issue. People that think the way I do would have thought the same way about not murdering black people 100 years ago (my side is the only moral one in this issue).