I'm not sure what your definition of "moral equivalence" is or how it applies here, but I don't think anything I said was "cheap" at all.
First of all, your response certainly is long and detailed. And I commend you on the tone of it. You exhibit an ability to present your points in a calm and reasoned manner, and I truly appreciate that. The point I was trying to make is that any argument to justify federal funding for embryonic stem cell research should stand or fall on its own merits - not because some other practice, e.g., IVF kills embryos. They are not equivalent and attempts to make them so are inaccurate. I do not claim to be an expert on IVF and you are correct that more embryos are created than needed to induce pregnancy. The parents have the option of freezing those not implanted for use at a later date, but if they don't, the embryos are destroyed. That means one simple thing to me and that is that I cannot support nor agree to the process being and acceptable recipients of federal funds because human life is/can be destroyed intentionally.
Once I explain those things to people, suddenly many of them are not so dead set against human ESC research.
To me, it is quite simple. If the process causes the death of a human being, I am opposed to federal funding for it. All the other things you mention are not relevant until you can show human life is not taken - which you can't because it is.
But so is throwing them in the garbage can. Those are the only two fates open to the vast majority of the fetuses involved.
I cannot subscribe to that rationale. Sorry, but discarded embryos from abortions are already wrong in my book. To then try to "take advantage" of the freebie cells, which would have been tossed anyway, is a slippery-slope argument and as they said in some movie, "This Way Be Monsters."
And I'm quite certain I'm not alone and yet somehow you think my mentioning that is intellectually dishonest. On the contrary, it seems to me that it would be more intellectually dishonest if I didn't.
You have cleared that point up for me but I still find the argument unconvincing given my objection to taking human life. One part of the Hippocratic Oath says that a physicians first rule is "do no harm." Killing embryos is doing harm, no matter how they're killed.
But if I didn't bring it up I suppose...
I prefer to think this is about ethics and what is right and what is wrong. For example, if Rudy Giulani were to get the republican nomination, I would vote against him because he is pro-abortion. That is a wrong position to take in my way of thinking and is wrong enough that I could not support him.
It is also the case that if a person is against research that destroys life, then IVF qualifies as well.
I would be opposed to federal funds for that too.
The only reason I am in favor of it is because I just cannot see how it's more moral to simply throw them away. You may think that's an invalid argument, and I presume it is at the crux of what you mean by "moral equivalence".
It is an unconvincing argument and to an extent is based on a moral equivalency that I disagree with although I am opposed to IVF too. You are, of course, entitled to your opinions and I can respect them, but I disagree.
As far as other sources of funding filling the void, there has been some progress in that regard. But the need came unexpectedly, and the ban on federal funding produced an assortment of barriers and complications that would otherwise not exist, which I also explained at some length -- including (but not limited to) why private funding increases the likelihood of fraud.
If you think that federal involvement reduces fraud, you'd better think again. It most likely INCREASES it.
Why do you say that? What is your evidence?
Almost no progress. Billions lost in dead ends. Fraud on epoch scale in Korea. Who knows what else is lurking behind closed doors yet to be uncovered? I automatically get very suspicious whenever I hear "scientists" lined up at the federal trough promising miraculous results if they could just get some/more taxpayer dollars.
Cancer research has been vigorously ongoing for 50 years or so.
Zero abortions resulted.
It's usually the politicians and pundits that exaggerate claims one way or the other. There are exceptions of course.
That has not been my experience. I retired from federal service after 35 years and during that time listened to an amazing number of sales pitches from private sector companies on a broad spectrum of issues. 90 percent of them were promising miracles, great savings, and highly effective "solutions" which were ever hardly the case. These guys (and gals) were worse than most used car salesmen.
And who exactly isn't crazy about investing in it?
The majority of congress is.
So, override the veto.
According to the polls, about 2/3 of the American public is as well.
To say the least, polls are suspect, but if that were true, the congress would not hesitate to override the veto. Wonder why they don't?
Who exactly are you talking about? And by not specifying, aren't you resorting to a straw man argument? Yes you are.
No straw man. I didn't think I had to explain the use of the word "invest." Taxpayers don't invest tax dollars; they hand them out to those who can get their pols to appropriate them to hand out. There is almost NO return on "investment." When I use investment, I am talking about the medical profession, the pharmaceutical companies, and clinics which stand to profit from positive research results. There should be no need for federal funds. Period. That hesitancy by the private sector to risk their money on this pie-in-the-sky "science" speaks volumes.
As far as the multiple "awful scandals" you mentioned, I know of only one
That one was enough to show what is going on in this program.
I have exposed several "gimicks" you tried to use. So it is up to you to respond if you feel you have the ability.
No gimmicks intended. I hope this response clears that up. BTW, my ability has little to do with it. This POS blog and its blue screen of death plays a much larger part. Wonder why they can't figure out what's wrong.
Yep, it was a good time for a lengthy photo op. Gather all the Falwellians and provide cue cards for their applause. This one really did make me turn off the boob tube.
Nothing else in the world going on.
He shouldn't have vetoed it. After all, 67% of the public and almost all scientists are for it.
Instead, he should have signed it and then just put in one of those signing statements of his that says Alzheimers, paralysis and cancer patients can go screw themselves as far as he's concerned.
I know it must be hard for Ashcan't to relate to a President who actually does what he promised to do. But I say, "Thank you Mr. President."
Off topic, but still pretty funny:
Animosity between the two top Democrats in the House -- Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) -- is worse than ever. Hoyer aides even speculate privately that it would be better for the party if the Democrats fail to regain control of the House in this year's elections and thus avoid a Pelosi speakership.
The result will that America will fall behind in medical research as other Asian and European countries will pursue stem cell research.
We were once a leader and innovator in the sciences. Under the Christian Taliban, we will further lose that edge, left to fight the Creationists and End Timer religious nuts.
As Christian Fundamentalism enters its final, declining phase the only mechanism left to guarantee it any kind of survival is to attempt to legislate its beliefs into law. When a relgious system no longer holds the hearts and minds of a population the leaders attempt legal recourse, war or oppression to shore up eroding power.
The tide will shift once again torward progressive, liberal thinking and sweep away the stagnant, foul pool of "conservatism" and all its harm it has done to America.
Wade
as other Asian and European countries will pursue stem cell research.
You mean like this?
No thanks...
we will further lose that edge, left to fight the Creationists and End Timer religious nuts.
I ignore them, why can't you? Oh...you mean you need my tax dollars to ignore them...I see...
When a relgious system no longer holds the hearts and minds of a population
Sounds like you have got a ways to go in the hearts and minds. Maybe less pictures of Karl Marx and Cindy Sheehan would help...
The tide will shift once again torward progressive, liberal thinking and sweep away the stagnant, foul pool of "conservatism" and all its harm it has done to America.
Ok, start holding your breath...Now. If you believe it, go ahead, hold your breath....
Thank the Lord!!
Jeremiah
Dear Mr. President. George W. Bush,
Thank you VERY MUCH, You are indeed a man of honor, and dignity!!
The Lord be with you, ALWAYS!!, and bless you!!
THANK YOU!!
:)
Jeremiah
Great post Wade,
Absolutely 100% correct on all counts. Let's hope it isn't too late.
All of those who cheer Bush's only veto today are cheering the economic, scientific, creative, and cultural destruction of this country. What Bush has done today will put us behind another 5 possibly 10 years scientifically. This veto coupled with that other superstition, (un)Creative Design, is nothing more than a one two punch to the scientific leadership of this country, dealt by the Ultra Fanatical Fundamentalist Christian Right.
Thanks to the Christian Right the scientific brain drain from this country is becoming our grievous loss and Europe and Asia's glorious gain. Scientists who once flocked to American are now avoiding us thanks to decisions like these. In interview after interview they state that very fact. Let's hope that the Fundamentalist’s waning influence dies out before the damage their doing to this country is irreversible.
To all the Fundamentalist Christians who applaud this decision I can only say this, enjoy mediocrity.
Great post Wade,
Absolutely 100% correct on all counts. Let's hope it isn't too late.
All of those who cheer Bush's only veto today are cheering the economic, scientific, creative, and cultural destruction of this country. What Bush has done today will put us behind 5 maybe 10 years scientifically. This veto coupled with that other superstition, (un)Creative Design, is a one two punch to the scientific leadership of this country, dealt by the Ultra Fanatical Fundamentalist Christian Right.
Thanks to the Christian Right the scientific brain drain from this country is becoming our grievous loss and Europe and Asia's glorious gain. Scientists who once flocked to American are now avoiding us thanks to decisions like these. Let's hope that the Fundamentalist’s waning influence dies out before the damage their doing to this country is irreversible.
To all the Fundamentalist Christians who applaud this decision I can only say, Enjoy Mediocrity.
Instead of vetoing it, Bush should have signed it into law.
Then he should have made one of his signing statements, saying that Alzheimers, paralysis, Parkinson's and other patients can get lost as far as the Bush administration is concerned.
Because, after all, what's most important is that 200 cells in a petri dish get flushed down a toilet instead of used for stem cell research.
Reverend:
Americans by a 2-1 margin support stem cell research and say it should be funded by the federal government.
Evangelicals have a slightly higher divorce rate than the general population.
Teenagers taking pledges of virginity through various youth Christian programs do not significantly lower sexual activity or the spread of STD's
AMericans who claim to be "Christians" has dropped 11% in the last 10 years while those who never attended church have increased in number.
So while many people may cliam to be "evangelica" they do not act i accordance with the beliefs. If trends continue more positive progressive systems of belief will displace Fundamentalist Christianty.
I look forward to the day.
Wade
Wade
Just for the record, Bush did NOT ban stem cell research.
He banned the use of federal funds for stem cell research.
Private individuals and corporations are still free to do all the research they want. That includes extractiing cells from aborted foetuses.
Just for the record, Bush did NOT ban stem cell research.
He banned the use of federal funds for stem cell research.
Private individuals and corporations are still free to do all the research they want. That includes extractiing cells from aborted foetuses.
Hey Lefties if ESC research is so important to the world maybe you should start a letter writing campaign to this guy
"Bill Gates Grants $287 Million for AIDS Vaccine"
Looks like he has loads of money to solve the worlds problems.
Why doesn't the Gates Foundation give millions for ESC research? Come on lefties whats the answer?
I got a better idea...get George Soros to fund ESC research. He is very adept at throwing millions of dollars at worthless causes.
Great post Wade,
Absolutely 100% correct on all counts. Let's hope it isn't too late.
So I guess you liked Wade's ass gas?
Hoyer aides even speculate privately that it would be better for the party if the Democrats fail to regain control of the House in this year's elections and thus avoid a Pelosi speakership.
Scar, Hoyer's correct, you know. We MD'ers are pretty smart, Democrats and Republicans alike. Hoyer knows that Piglosi as House Speaker would bring about the Dem's demise.
Frankly, I'm not worried about the donks winning back the house; they can't govern from the left and keep it, so what does it matter.
FWIW, I don't expect them to come close to taking it back anyway...
FWIW, I don't expect them to come close to taking it back anyway..
I agree. They hate America and America hates them right back.
Scar, I wasn't implying that all donks in MD are smart, just some. Hoyer's from Southern MD, where I grew up and left to defend my country for 20 years back in 1976. We do have a few kooks in MD--my state legislature is packed with libs, and our two U.S. Senators, Mikulski and Sarbanes, are certifiable.
I don't call my state "Massachussetts of the Mid-Atlantic" just for sh*ts and grins...
There's a lot of lefty money out there that could be put to good use, if you lefties want to spend money on embryonic stem cell research. This research is in no way near any medical breakthroughs; it's just a political tool for the killthebabies crowd.
Soros, Gates, Buffett, and Hugo Chavez could part with some of their wealth. Why don't they? Is it that they know that this is a waste of their money? Ding-ding-ding!!! We have a winner!!!
LFFGF SGSPN NE... not True... because part of their grand scheme (at least what Steve, the Peace promoting Zionist hater suggests ) is anyone making over 100k a year gets taxed 100% on anything over that 100k... so there wouldn't be ANY money for Anything... because no one but the government would have two cents to rub together.
I for one am just glad to see our theocratic system finally paying off. The good Reverend George, defying the Will of the People, finally put some sense back into the church, I mean government. Sure hundreds of thousands may suffer, but LIFE is what George is about (please try to forget the unfortunate fact about all those executions he oversaw, most by any Governor…..EVER) …Now if we can just finish what he has started…get the evil study of science out of every child’s class room would be a good start, we can prepare for the second coming…of Regan, or Jesus, or whatever we’re being told to worship these days….
Where do those lefties get the nerve to think scientific research can lead to anything other then evil??? Makes me sick (must be demons….I’d use some sort of medicine but Rev. George says that’s bad) what has science ever gotten us that faith in Jesus hasn’t? Nothing!
Thank God we have a leader who can stand up and say, To Hell with what the ideals this Nation was founded upon…We need some good Christian leadership to show everyone how it must be done…
God Bless America, because our President sure don’t give a damn about us
God Bless America, because our President sure don’t give a damn about us.
God bless Opus, 'cause he's a doofus.
Wawilliyo, Steve is an idiot, a spoof, or both. He drops his b/s, never leaves any cites, and never answers rebuttals. He's taxed alright--mentally taxed. Just like doofus...I mean, Opus.
God Bless America, because our President sure don’t give a damn about us
Need a new diaper?
Meanwhile the Chinese are pushing full steam ahead with stem cell research. It will be funny when they find a cure for mental retardation and Reverand Sacashit has to go to China for brain replacement................bwahahahaha
Meanwhile the Chinese are pushing full steam..
Another one of your Commie success stories? You really admire these totalitarian countries don't you? You probably run around on Sunday carrying a "Free Saddam" sign. Unfortunately, there is no cure for what is wrong with you.
There are times when I feel that reasonable debate is hopeless. This is one of those times.
If there is any silver lining, at least I know my facts are White House sanctioned! Bush said in his address: "My administration has made available more than $90 million for research on these lines." Yup, that's what I thought. And to put that in perspective (once again), that approximately equals the amount of money we spend in Iraq EVERY 8 HOURS OF EVERY DAY OF EVERY WEEK OF EVERY MONTH OF EVERY FREAKIN' YEAR!
By the way, he mentioned NOT A FREAKIN' WORD about invitro fertilization. But he did trot out a handful of "snowflake babies" again, of which he said, "They are living proof that effective medical science can also be ethical." Yeah well, assuming you ignore the other 400,000 or so which will succomb to freezer burn. WHAT ABOUT THEM??!!How many snowflake babies were there? A couple dozen or so? It that were a realistic option, they would occupy several football stadiums to capacity -- more if you include their parents. Yet he fit them all into what, the Rose Garden? Some ethics. It's cherry-picking ethics is what it is. It's a blatant attempt to appeal to his political base. A blatant attempt to construe the issue as something it's not. A blatant attempt to try to make two wrongs into a right. In short, Bush didn't have the decency to frame the question in its proper light, and he knew it. It appalls me on so many different levels I am lost for words. You know, I used to think Bush was a good, decent human being -- maybe not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but good and decent nonetheless. But it is times like this I wonder about even that.
Who's the one who says, "I barf a little in my mouth"? Well, that's what I'm doing right now.
Bush didn't have the decency to frame the question in its proper light
Please enlighten us unwashed with the proper light, oh wise knower of all.
Scaramonga said: "Please enlighten us unwashed with the proper light, oh wise knower of all."
Geez, Rev, where've you been? Check out just about any recent topic on this blog about stem cell research. You can't miss me. But this one is a particularly good place to start.
Just so you know, I don't pretend to know everything, never have and never will. What I do try to do is lay out my point of view in as much detail as time will permit, and try to provide as much documentation for that point of view as space will allow. I try not to offer up mammoth posts (at least not soapbox-sized mammoth anyway: I try to stay on topic), but I can assure you that if you come after me I will keep giving you more... and more... and more... I'm not one to call names or throw bombs. I pretty much ignore all that. But I do pay attention. And while I'm not always right, I do feel a certain responsibility to be able to back up what I say. And if I can't I will tell you I can't. I don't have any problem with that. So have at me dude, if you think you're up to it.
Rico,
You did an awfully good job explaining all this, but it is a pretty complex subject! Thanks for your help.
"Yeah well, assuming you ignore the other 400,000 or so which will succomb to freezer burn. WHAT ABOUT THEM??!!" Rico
Let's be intellectually honest, cut the histrionics.
There is nothing preventing the owners of these embryos from donating them for privately funded research. Why is it that you lefties think that federal funding is the answer to everything?
Stem cell research is already underway, it is already being funded at the federal level, as well as the state (Calif. & Ma.) level, and the private & corporate level. So what is your problem?
BTW When Bush campaigned he said he would veto this legislation. So he kept a campaign promise...what a concept.
"Sure hundreds of thousands may suffer, but LIFE is what George is about"
Opus,
Think about it?
Let's say for instance, you were running a little late for work one morning and let's say you spotted someone in the back alley hostage to some idiot, What would you do just go on to work and say NA, WHO CARES, or would you try to save that persons life, and call 911?
You see!, It's YOUR! actions, that are holding little unborn children hostage, by CONDONING abortion, and the FUNDING of it, your'e pathetic, You and your kind are the very people who continue the dissension of America, You have held so many in your grip of ANY-THING GOES, as long as it suits you, yeah, GO AHEAD murder all the innocent un-borns, like, WHO CARES. No one has any feelings, No one ever hurts, No one ever grieves!!!
It's really sad that so many have been fallen into your demented satanic evils!
Opus, You have a problem my friend!.....
and it is REAL!!!, you suggested in your post that you would probably get medicine?, Well, you do need medicine, but it's not the kind of medicine you are thinking!!, No, What you need is to have a good ol fashioned EXORCISM, because you are TRULY plagued with demons!!!! If Jesus were here right now!, YOU WOULD NOT TALK!, Did you know that? Because the demons would recognize Jesus in a split second, and your mouth would not open!!!
You see Opus, That's what happens to people when they let the demons take control of their lives, They have NO CONTROL over what they say, and that is very dangerous!!, you can't even recognize the fact that You have lost control Opus, What a shame!!
..............................
"...of regan, or Jesus"
You speak of Jesus precious Holy name!! My!,My!, Opus my friend!!, your heart is FAR FROM HIM!!
Well, Opus, I can't change your hate for America!
Because you are American like all the rest of us, But I can tell you what I can do!! I can pray for you!!
Because I serve a God whos power is GREATER than all the forces of hell and satan COMBINED!!
When Jesus was on the cross, he had the power to call 27,000 angels to his side, and they would have been there in the blink of an eye, but you see, he LOVED you SO MUCH, Opus, That he willingly gave his life, So that you might have the oppurtunity to live!! FOREVER!!! AN ETERNITY!!!!!, WITH HIM!!
The Nail: reminds me I was a sinner condemned to die.
The Nail also reminds of my great worth. Esteemed worthy of the sacrifice of God's Only Son.
Jesus Christ regarded precious enough that He endured the pain and agony of the cross and shed his blood to give me life.
The Nail reminds me daily to pick up my cross and follow Him.
The Nail didn't hold Him to the cross, it was His love for me!
"and He is the propitiation for our sins....
and for the whole world." 1 John 2:2
Jeremiah
Stem cell research is going on all over the world in private labs. Since when does the tax dollar have to fund the killing of embryos? It is no surprise that Ash and his ilk could care less about killing life. If they had their way, the kids with President Bush and their parents would have been killed long ago.
Stem cells are implanted everyday in cancer victims here in the USA. My suggestion if you don't understand the complex issue surrounding stem cells you take a short trip to google.
There is no greater gift than the gift of life. Ask the parents of the snowflake children. Ask the children.
phnxbmed, first of all, you extracted my statement out of context. The part you featured was part of a rebuttal to Bush's argument that the "snowflake babies" in attendance represented living proof that effective medical science can also be ethical." So let's do be intellectually honest, shall we? My statement had nothing to do with federal funding. Rather, it had everything to do with the absurd discrepancy between Bush's proposed solution as to how to deal with those pesky frozen embryos and the actual numbers involved. By my count, Bush is somewhere on the order of 399,976 (and counting) fetuses short of having a viable solution. So I ask you, who's being more intellectually honest?
As far as federal versus private/state funding goes, yours is a valid point. But it is not exactly a novel one even for this site. I refer you to this previous topic for information regarding alternative funding sources and the problems associated with the dichotomy. And frankly, I don't think federal funding is the answer to everything. The problem as I see it is that Bush's ban, such as it is, creates a situation with a great deal of uncertainty and a significant amount of potential waste in terms of monies devoted to equipment in any given laboratory. Perhaps you have to be involved in it (or something close) to truly appreciate how big a barrier that is. Perhaps you also have to appreciate how common it is for labs that are working on human therapies to also have infrahuman research pursuits operating in tandem. Not just those involved in ESC research, I mean any lab involved in the development of any human therapy. To have both human and infrahuman avenues of pursuit operating in tandem is far more the rule than the exception. It stands to reason if you think about it -- in order to answer more basic questions that might come up you can't go fiddling around with humans. That's kinda frowned on (and with very good reason). But it's not so frowned on if you test things out in rats or mice or guinea pigs first. So say you come up with a treatment in your guinea pigs that you think might work in humans, but as it turns out none of the approved human ESC lines have exactly the characteristicas you're looking for? What do you do?
Can you answer that question phnxbmed, in all intellectual honesty?
The fact is, in some cases there may be a work-around. But it will take you time and money to find it. That's true every time it happens, too. In some cases you might find yourself up against a brick wall insofar as the approved lines go. Another, unapproved line might appear to hold more promise, but you can't touch it to even begin to find out unless you want to start a new lab, essentially from scratch, and seek out different sources of funding.
Do you see the problem now?
*Shrugs*
I am honestly not surprised in the least on this. He said he was going to do it, so he did it. Though I am a bit disapointed that it took this long for him to use one of his biggest powers.
Though, I don't think this will put us "5 to 10 years" behind on this subject. I'm sure that even if they don't get private funding for ESC research they'll just switch to another research area.
Could ESC research be the cure all? Possibly, but it's just as likely to be a dead end, or not as viable as another solution.
Will this ruling kill ESC research in America? I doubt it, especially if it's worth researching as people obviously think.
Does this decision go to the root of the "moral question" as to what is done with the extra embryos created during artificial fertilization? Not by a long shot.
Again, to me this is a scientific question that will be figured out over time. It's not the only thing going on and I can name five other more interesting and "world breaking" ideas.(At least to me) Each vies for funding and attention as much as the next, all with their own merits and flaws.
Well- its great to see that our president has such reverence for human life--despite what his enemies say. Yes, GW will fight to the last to preserve those embryos-because -well that's the right thing to do. And those 50,000 Iraqis and 2,500 Americans who have lost their lives due to Bush's folly in Iraq-well lets not think about that-lets concentrate on the good news coming out of Iraq-on the GI's handing out pencils to schoolchildren. And about the thousands of U.S. citizens who lost their lives due to the administration's lack of attention/response last September-well everyone deserves a summer vacation! Glad to see Dubya's so reverential towards the right-to-life of those stem cells, though!
While that may be true, I don't understand why essentially no one, particularly those on the right, has a problem with invitro fertilization (IVF).
Cheap attempt at moral equivalence. The point you were attempting to refute from Almiranta was not even addressed. This is what is known as a straw man. It may be "reasoned logic" to you, but liberals usually think that moral equivalence and building straw men are valid debate methods. If this research is destroying human life, which Almiranta says it is, then it is wrong. That is the position of those who oppose it. Bringing up other medical procedures as an equivalence is just a ploy to avoid having to declare the embryo human. If you don't believe it is a human life, make your case. But don't play these silly rhetorical games.
You use similar tactics on Retired Spooks comments where he cites the fact (that means an established truth) that the "science" has had a long and dismaying string of failures and that fact points to the conclusion that it no longer deserves federal funding. You go off on another tangent trying to dig up some experiment on rats and mice. I will grant that your rhetorical ploy of starting out trying to counter RS's point by saying, "I don't know." I agree, you don't know. Hence your follow-on argument, based on that simple fact is pointless.
Next you try to use the technique of inundation with "information" and say lookie here. Having not refuted Spook, and built a straw man instead of discussion Almiranta's assertion, you next provide links to show how wonderful the program is doing. First you must resolve Almiranta's point. Is it killing a human? If not, prove it. If yes, then you must be for it. Defend that position. Might be a little difficult for those who believe in not intentionally taking human life for scientific experiments, but give it a try. Who knows, you might convince us, but you have no chance by skirting the real issues here.
Just as a side-note. In case you haven't caught it in previous comments, I am an atheist. I have an extensive scientific background in the nuclear physics arena so I understand the ideas behind science. I tell you this to deflect any silly argument you might put forth that this is some kind of religious thing. I am a conservative for sure. I helped to elect President Bush. He promised those of us who did help to elect him that he would not allow embryonic stem cell research to be funded with our tax dollars. He kept that promise. You may not like it, but those are the facts.
Then you say:
This statement is an attempt to characterize Bush as the culprit in some diabolical plot to "dwindle" stem cell stocks. That is a lie. If the scientific community saw all the promise that the less informed claim are there, private dollars would have more than filled the void. Just look a the billions a Pharmaceutical house will spend on a new medicine to bring it to market. But then they have confidence that they can do something useful with it. Given the dismal lack of real outcomes in stem cells, and some of the awful scandals surrounding it, they do not seem too crazy to invest in this "science."
Nothing the President has done will slow or stop research in this subject area if the private sector sees value in it. People like you tend to assign a "miracle" status to promises made by researchers, some of whom have faked their results and been disgraced for it, instead of any real results. In the business of science, the lack of investment by the industries associated with research and development and their "demands" for federal funding speak volumes. Spook is right. It is a bad investment, given its track record. Almiranta is right. It is killing human life. Address those two without the straw men, appeals to emotion, and other rhetorical tricks, and maybe you can get a real debate going.
If this research is destroying human life, which Almiranta says it is, then it is wrong.
Nope, it's not destroying human life. Almiranta is wrong. You are wrong. In a related story, the sky is blue.
Rant away, Grampa Simpson.
"phnxbmed, first of all, you extracted my statement out of context. The part you featured was part of a rebuttal to Bush's argument that the "snowflake babies" in attendance represented living proof that effective medical science can also be ethical." So let's do be intellectually honest, shall we?" Rico
Yes let's
The 400,000 frozen embryos you brought up is the emotional meme of the left that unless these embryos are enrolled in a FEDERALLY FUNDED ESC program then they will be medical waste. This is simply an emotional canard used by the left to inflame the passions of those who know little about research and the various funding options and research programs available. It also fails to consider that the embryos are essentially property of either the parents or the labs and as such they have the ultimate determination as to their disposition.
"but as it turns out none of the approved human ESC lines have exactly the characteristics you're looking for? What do you do?" Rico
Sooprise sooprise! Let's admit then, since we are being intellectually honest, that none of these ESC experiments have succeeded or resulted in any useful treatment modality. So why should we waste federal funding on programs which have been shown not to work, especially when there are other avenues that have worked and show more promise (Adult stem cells, placenta derived stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells? It is quite conceivable that ESCs are not suitable for therapeutic use. How about some evidence that they will work, based on the research success of the private sector before we waste precious federal research dollars?
Another point to consider is that academia is filled with PhDs who are searching from funds, any funds, to perpetuate their personal agendas. In order to do so they enlist the media as their accomplices in what amounts to publicity campaigns that seek to solve every problem. The best example of this is the global warming debate. One must accept without question that MAN is the cause and that unless Federal funds and restrictions are put in place immediately WE ARE DOOMED! Pity the poor scientist who danes to question the validity of consensus science on this issue. The one thing that all researchers like about Federal funding is there is no pressure to produce results, papers yes but not useful results. As long as they can publish and present there is no need to actually accomplish anything. Public sector financing, especially corporate or
venture capital financing, is by nature results oriented. If ESC is the Holy Grail of bio- medicine, results will be demonstrated there first.
You lefties love to hold out the hope of miracle cures and have given false hope to millions who think that their conditions or those of their loved ones will be quickly cured of whatever condition they may have…if only the federal funds were available to do so. You are the modern day equivalents snake oil salesmen selling false hope for cures without any substance behind your claims.
Scaramonga said: "cheap attempt at moral equivalence".
I'm not sure what your definition of "moral equivalence" is or how it applies here, but I don't think anything I said was "cheap" at all. Many of the people that I have talked to previously assumed: (1) that ESC came from aborted fetuses. They could, but that is not the issue here. The ESC we're talking about come from fertility clinics. (2) that fertility clinics are generating fetuses for the expressed purpose of research. They aren't. The fetuses already exist as a byproduct of fertility treatments. And the vast majority of them will be destroyed one way or another.
Once I explain those things to people, suddenly many of them are not so dead set against human ESC research. True, some of them remain so, and for the reason you specified -- it is currently the case that in order to extract ESCs, the fetus is destroyed. I thought I made that point clear as well. In so doing, I did respond to Almiranta. To say I didn't is false. You say quite emphatically that "Almiranta is right. It is killing human life." I don't recall if I specifically addressed the question of whether or not the fetus in question is a "human life", but it was certainly implied in my argument. I mean for goodness sake, if a fetus isn't human, the argument's over, right? So IMHO, it is killing human life. But so is throwing them in the garbage can. Those are the only two fates open to the vast majority of the fetuses involved. That is a fact that cannot be ignored, and one that could weigh heavily on a person's opinion about how best to proceed. It is certainly true in my case. And I'm quite certain I'm not alone and yet somehow you think my mentioning that is intellectually dishonest. On the contrary, it seems to me that it would be more intellectually dishonest if I didn't.
But if I didn't bring it up I suppose I would certainly be closer to the official party line. And that, I suspect, is the true focus of your disagreement with me -- you don't think I'm sufficiently pure ideologically. If so, you're probably right -- if the ideology doesn't make sense, I dump the ideology. To do otherwise would be... well, illogical.
It is also the case that if a person is against research that destroys life, then IVF qualifies as well. True, research into IVF has progressed to the point were the therapy is readily available. But it still qualifies, doesn't it? If not, why not? And since it has progressed to a readily available therapy it presents a real moral dilemma, and I mentioned that as well.
I also mentioned that I am against IVF, and that if things were otherwise (that is, if hundreds of thousands of fetuses didn't already exist, I would be against human ESC research as well. The only reason I am in favor of it is because I just cannot see how it's more moral to simply throw them away. You may think that's an invalid argument, and I presume it is at the crux of what you mean by "moral equivalence". On the contrary, I contend that I am expanding the perspective to show people how things connect. I don't just think that's appropriate, I think it is essential. In any decision making process, the more you know about the issue at hand and the more you know about how it fits into other issues, the sounder your decisions are. Narrowing one's focus at the outset makes for poor decisions. Then you're like a blind mouse trying to make sense of an elephant. You are, in effect, cherry-picking.
As far as Spook goes, he's a friend of mine so I was pulling my punches a bit. And I apologize, Spook, for what I am about to say, but the fact of the matter is that Spook's argument was what they call in debating circles as an "appeal to authority". He presented no evidence whatsoever, just the conclusion arrived at by someone else -- apparently a smart guy and someone he trusts. I don't begrudge him that, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no way to evaluate the veracity of his conclusion. Apparently it's enough for you since you concluded that "Spook is right". But you don't provide any evidence to evaluate your conclusion either. So what am I supposed to do -- just accept the conclusion because you and Spook said so? You're kidding, right? I can't say he (or you) is/are wrong, because I DON'T KNOW anything about the bases for your conclusion. All I can do is present real, honest-to-goodness evidence to indicate that the conclusion y'all arrived at is unwarranted. So that's what I did. And somehow you think that's inappropriate? How so? What am I supposed to say -- you're wrong and leave it that? Is that your definition of a "real debate"?
Regarding the dwindling number of cell lines, I never said Bush was involved in some kind of diabolical plot to cause those lines to dwindle. You imposed that value judgement, not me. I just stated the facts -- they HAVE dwindled. There's nothing nefarious about it, it's just the way it goes. And considering the nature of the substances involved, there is no question that they will dwindle further. The only questions are how much and how quickly. It's not like new lines are suddenly going to appear out of thin air.
As far as other sources of funding filling the void, there has been some progress in that regard. But the need came unexpectedly, and the ban on federal funding produced an assortment of barriers and complications that would otherwise not exist, which I also explained at some length -- including (but not limited to) why private funding increases the likelihood of fraud.
You go on to say that, "given the dismal lack of real outcomes in stem cells, and some of the awful scandals surrounding it, they do not seem too crazy to invest in this "science.""
I have noted that some peoples expectations are unrealistically high. Likewise, some people's expectations are unrealistically low as well. Apparently yours fit into the latter category. You say the lack of outcomes is "dismal". Why do you say that? What is your evidence? Cancer research has been vigorously ongoing for 50 years or so. And yet in all that time the only treatments available in the vast majority of cases are still tantamount to sledgehammers (chemo, radiation, and surgery) rather than flyswatters (remedies specifically targetted to only the cancer cells). So in a sense you could call cancer research a dismal failure. Thank God for the sledgehammers, though. By comparison ESC research is in its infancy. It seems awfully premature to be sounding its death knell. Likewise, it is unrealistic to expect too much too soon. I believe I made that point several times in different ways. I certainly did not intend to assign a "miracle" status to the research, and in fact I tried to specifically avoid it. And it is usually the researchers themselves that are most realistic as to the potential. It's usually the politicians and pundits that exaggerate claims one way or the other. There are exceptions of course.
And who exactly isn't crazy about investing in it? The majority of congress is. According to the polls, about 2/3 of the American public is as well. The California voters are too. Who exactly are you talking about? And by not specifying, aren't you resorting to a straw man argument? Yes you are.
As far as the multiple "awful scandals" you mentioned, I know of only one -- Dr. Hwang Woo Suk's work in SK. That one certainly was a blockbuster, that's for sure. Unfortunately, science is based on a certain amount of trust. The peer review process is designed to mitigate the possibility of fraud (among other things), but if someone is sufficiently motivated towards fraud it sometimes takes a while to uncover it. But almost always it will be exposed eventually. As exceedingly unfortunate as the episode was, the system worked in Dr. Hwang's case. He has been revealed as the scumbag he is. Fortunately, his work wasn't exactly mainstream, so the episode didn't set most of the research back too much.
In conclusion, I think I have responded in great detail to every singe one of your charges. In the process I have exposed several "gimicks" you tried to use. So it is up to you to respond if you feel you have the ability.
Scaramonga said: "cheap attempt at moral equivalence".
I'm not sure what your definition of "moral equivalence" is or how it applies here, but I don't think anything I said was "cheap" at all. Many of the people that I have talked to previously assumed: (1) that ESC came from aborted fetuses. They could, but that is not the issue here. The ESC we're talking about come from fertility clinics. (2) that fertility clinics are generating fetuses for the expressed purpose of research. They aren't. The fetuses already exist as a byproduct of fertility treatments. And the vast majority of them will be destroyed one way or another.
Once I explain those things to people, suddenly many of them are not so dead set against human ESC research. True, some of them remain so, and for the reason you specified -- it is currently the case that in order to extract ESCs, the fetus is destroyed. I thought I made that point clear as well. In so doing, I did respond to Almiranta. To say I didn't is false. You say quite emphatically that "Almiranta is right. It is killing human life." I don't recall if I specifically addressed the question of whether or not the fetus in question is a "human life", but it was certainly implied in my argument. I mean for goodness sake, if a fetus isn't human, the argument's over, right? So IMHO, it is killing human life. But so is throwing them in the garbage can. Those are the only two fates open to the vast majority of the fetuses involved. That is a fact that cannot be ignored, and one that could weigh heavily on a person's opinion about how best to proceed. It is certainly true in my case. And I'm quite certain I'm not alone and yet somehow you think my mentioning that is intellectually dishonest. On the contrary, it seems to me that it would be more intellectually dishonest if I didn't.
But if I didn't bring it up I suppose I would certainly be closer to the official party line. And that, I suspect, is the true focus of your disagreement with me -- you don't think I'm sufficiently pure ideologically. If so, you're probably right -- if the ideology doesn't make sense, I dump the ideology. To do otherwise would be... well, illogical.
It is also the case that if a person is against research that destroys life, then IVF qualifies as well. True, research into IVF has progressed to the point were the therapy is readily available. But it still qualifies, doesn't it? If not, why not? And since it has progressed to a readily available therapy it presents a real moral dilemma, and I mentioned that as well.
I also mentioned that I am against IVF, and that if things were otherwise (that is, if hundreds of thousands of fetuses didn't already exist, I would be against human ESC research as well. The only reason I am in favor of it is because I just cannot see how it's more moral to simply throw them away. You may think that's an invalid argument, and I presume it is at the crux of what you mean by "moral equivalence". On the contrary, I contend that I am expanding the perspective to show people how things connect. I don't just think that's appropriate, I think it is essential. In any decision making process, the more you know about the issue at hand and the more you know about how it fits into other issues, the sounder your decisions are. Narrowing one's focus at the outset makes for poor decisions. Then you're like a blind mouse trying to make sense of an elephant. You are, in effect, cherry-picking.
As far as Spook goes, he's a friend of mine so I was pulling my punches a bit. And I apologize, Spook, for what I am about to say, but the fact of the matter is that Spook's argument was what they call in debating circles as an "appeal to authority". He presented no evidence whatsoever, just the conclusion arrived at by someone else -- apparently a smart guy and someone he trusts. I don't begrudge him that, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no way to evaluate the veracity of his conclusion. Apparently it's enough for you since you concluded that "Spook is right". But you don't provide any evidence to evaluate your conclusion either. So what am I supposed to do -- just accept the conclusion because you and Spook said so? You're kidding, right? I can't say he (or you) is/are wrong, because I DON'T KNOW anything about the bases for your conclusion. All I can do is present real, honest-to-goodness evidence to indicate that the conclusion y'all arrived at is unwarranted. So that's what I did. And somehow you think that's inappropriate? How so? What am I supposed to say -- you're wrong and leave it that? Is that your definition of a "real debate"?
Regarding the dwindling number of cell lines, I never said Bush was involved in some kind of diabolical plot to cause those lines to dwindle. You imposed that value judgement, not me. I just stated the facts -- they HAVE dwindled. There's nothing nefarious about it, it's just the way it goes. And considering the nature of the substances involved, there is no question that they will dwindle further. The only questions are how much and how quickly. It's not like new lines are suddenly going to appear out of thin air.
As far as other sources of funding filling the void, there has been some progress in that regard. But the need came unexpectedly, and the ban on federal funding produced an assortment of barriers and complications that would otherwise not exist, which I also explained at some length -- including (but not limited to) why private funding increases the likelihood of fraud.
You go on to say that, "given the dismal lack of real outcomes in stem cells, and some of the awful scandals surrounding it, they do not seem too crazy to invest in this "science.""
I have noted that some peoples expectations are unrealistically high. Likewise, some people's expectations are unrealistically low as well. Apparently yours fit into the latter category. You say the lack of outcomes is "dismal". Why do you say that? What is your evidence? Cancer research has been vigorously ongoing for 50 years or so. And yet in all that time the only treatments available in the vast majority of cases are still tantamount to sledgehammers (chemo, radiation, and surgery) rather than flyswatters (remedies specifically targetted to only the cancer cells). So in a sense you could call cancer research a dismal failure. Thank God for the sledgehammers, though. By comparison ESC research is in its infancy. It seems awfully premature to be sounding its death knell. Likewise, it is unrealistic to expect too much too soon. I believe I made that point several times in different ways. I certainly did not intend to assign a "miracle" status to the research, and in fact I tried to specifically avoid it. And it is usually the researchers themselves that are most realistic as to the potential. It's usually the politicians and pundits that exaggerate claims one way or the other. There are exceptions of course.
And who exactly isn't crazy about investing in it? The majority of congress is. According to the polls, about 2/3 of the American public is as well. The California voters are too. Who exactly are you talking about? And by not specifying, aren't you resorting to a straw man argument? Yes you are.
As far as the multiple "awful scandals" you mentioned, I know of only one -- Dr. Hwang Woo Suk's work in SK. That one certainly was a blockbuster, that's for sure. Unfortunately, science is based on a certain amount of trust. The peer review process is designed to mitigate the possibility of fraud (among other things), but if someone is sufficiently motivated towards fraud it sometimes takes a while to uncover it. But almost always it will be exposed eventually. As exceedingly unfortunate as the episode was, the system worked in Dr. Hwang's case. He has been revealed as the scumbag he is. Fortunately, his work wasn't exactly mainstream, so the episode didn't set most of the research back too much.
In conclusion, I think I have responded in great detail to every singe one of your charges. In the process I have exposed several "gimicks" you tried to use. So it is up to you to respond if you feel you have the ability.
I'm not sure what your definition of "moral equivalence" is or how it applies here, but I don't think anything I said was "cheap" at all.
First of all, your response certainly is long and detailed. And I commend you on the tone of it. You exhibit an ability to present your points in a calm and reasoned manner, and I truly appreciate that. The point I was trying to make is that any argument to justify federal funding for embryonic stem cell research should stand or fall on its own merits - not because some other practice, e.g., IVF kills embryos. They are not equivalent and attempts to make them so are inaccurate. I do not claim to be an expert on IVF and you are correct that more embryos are created than needed to induce pregnancy. The parents have the option of freezing those not implanted for use at a later date, but if they don't, the embryos are destroyed. That means one simple thing to me and that is that I cannot support nor agree to the process being and acceptable recipients of federal funds because human life is/can be destroyed intentionally.
Once I explain those things to people, suddenly many of them are not so dead set against human ESC research.
To me, it is quite simple. If the process causes the death of a human being, I am opposed to federal funding for it. All the other things you mention are not relevant until you can show human life is not taken - which you can't because it is.
But so is throwing them in the garbage can. Those are the only two fates open to the vast majority of the fetuses involved.
I cannot subscribe to that rationale. Sorry, but discarded embryos from abortions are already wrong in my book. To then try to "take advantage" of the freebie cells, which would have been tossed anyway, is a slippery-slope argument and as they said in some movie, "This Way Be Monsters."
And I'm quite certain I'm not alone and yet somehow you think my mentioning that is intellectually dishonest. On the contrary, it seems to me that it would be more intellectually dishonest if I didn't.
You have cleared that point up for me but I still find the argument unconvincing given my objection to taking human life. One part of the Hippocratic Oath says that a physicians first rule is "do no harm." Killing embryos is doing harm, no matter how they're killed.
But if I didn't bring it up I suppose...
I prefer to think this is about ethics and what is right and what is wrong. For example, if Rudy Giulani were to get the republican nomination, I would vote against him because he is pro-abortion. That is a wrong position to take in my way of thinking and is wrong enough that I could not support him.
It is also the case that if a person is against research that destroys life, then IVF qualifies as well.
I would be opposed to federal funds for that too.
The only reason I am in favor of it is because I just cannot see how it's more moral to simply throw them away. You may think that's an invalid argument, and I presume it is at the crux of what you mean by "moral equivalence".
It is an unconvincing argument and to an extent is based on a moral equivalency that I disagree with although I am opposed to IVF too. You are, of course, entitled to your opinions and I can respect them, but I disagree.
As far as other sources of funding filling the void, there has been some progress in that regard. But the need came unexpectedly, and the ban on federal funding produced an assortment of barriers and complications that would otherwise not exist, which I also explained at some length -- including (but not limited to) why private funding increases the likelihood of fraud.
If you think that federal involvement reduces fraud, you'd better think again. It most likely INCREASES it.
Why do you say that? What is your evidence?
Almost no progress. Billions lost in dead ends. Fraud on epoch scale in Korea. Who knows what else is lurking behind closed doors yet to be uncovered? I automatically get very suspicious whenever I hear "scientists" lined up at the federal trough promising miraculous results if they could just get some/more taxpayer dollars.
Cancer research has been vigorously ongoing for 50 years or so.
Zero abortions resulted.
It's usually the politicians and pundits that exaggerate claims one way or the other. There are exceptions of course.
That has not been my experience. I retired from federal service after 35 years and during that time listened to an amazing number of sales pitches from private sector companies on a broad spectrum of issues. 90 percent of them were promising miracles, great savings, and highly effective "solutions" which were ever hardly the case. These guys (and gals) were worse than most used car salesmen.
And who exactly isn't crazy about investing in it?
The majority of congress is.
So, override the veto.
According to the polls, about 2/3 of the American public is as well.
To say the least, polls are suspect, but if that were true, the congress would not hesitate to override the veto. Wonder why they don't?
Who exactly are you talking about? And by not specifying, aren't you resorting to a straw man argument? Yes you are.
No straw man. I didn't think I had to explain the use of the word "invest." Taxpayers don't invest tax dollars; they hand them out to those who can get their pols to appropriate them to hand out. There is almost NO return on "investment." When I use investment, I am talking about the medical profession, the pharmaceutical companies, and clinics which stand to profit from positive research results. There should be no need for federal funds. Period. That hesitancy by the private sector to risk their money on this pie-in-the-sky "science" speaks volumes.
As far as the multiple "awful scandals" you mentioned, I know of only one
That one was enough to show what is going on in this program.
I have exposed several "gimicks" you tried to use. So it is up to you to respond if you feel you have the ability.
No gimmicks intended. I hope this response clears that up. BTW, my ability has little to do with it. This POS blog and its blue screen of death plays a much larger part. Wonder why they can't figure out what's wrong.
The latest edition of National Review Magazine has an article about the veto and is repercussions that I found intesting: