HA! I posted the topic first! So what do y'all think about this? It's kind of a cop-out, in my opinion, to just fund research on the existing stem-cell lines and not any more. I also think, however, that this was Bush's best possible move politically on this issue. Fire away.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
