|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
 Posted - 08/16/2001 : 10:04:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
He brought it on himself. When Clinton decided to renew funding and GW was a candidate, he made a campaign issue out of it to impress the "pro-life" voters. It would have never been such a big deal if he didn't make it so.
And then he was stuck with it. Wonder if he has felt like slapping a few advisors during the past couple of weeks? It probably seemed like a good idea at the time to make this a campaign issue. Usually the public forgets as soon as the ballots are counted. (and recounted and recounted) This time it didn't just go away.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
 |
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2001 : 10:46:31 [Permalink]
|
I don't buy the idea that stem cell research requires and hard-nosed moral soul searching. It is a purely scientific issue. The only situation where soul searching would be required is if stem cell use is considered a form of abortion – a position clearly taken by anti-abortion groups. The President states that he's anti-abortion because it is the destruction of a human life (ie. murder). The President however states that abortion should be allowed in cases where the mother's life is in danger or in cases or rape or incest. In fact, his opinion is consistent with the majority of those Americans opposed to abortion. The trouble with this definition of allowable abortion is that if a fetus is human life, it is so regardless of the conditions of conception. Only the most intense anti-abortionist however would want to require for example, a 13 year-old girl who was raped by an abusive father, to carry a pregnancy to term.
The problem with the limiting of funding of the research is that tens of thousands of fertilized eggs now in freezers in the US will not be used for research. They will instead be autoclaved and discarded. Isn't the case where a fertilized egg is used for life-saving medical research much the same as aborting a fetus to save the mother's life?
The other problem that I have with the policy is the whole “Brave New World” issue. It's another anti-intellectual bashing of the scientific community. What else are we to believe from these remarks other than that the scientists cannot be trusted to have any moral or ethical standards. (SARCASM)> The scientists are just frothing at the mouth ready to use stem cells for their Frankensteinian research. <(END OF SARCASM)Besides, the policy only effects academic institutions. There is no ban on research. Biotech firms (who don't rely on public funding) can still do all the research they want. The profit potential is tremendous. Maybe only academic scientists can't be trusted.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2001 : 21:47:09 [Permalink]
|
So, Bush has come up with a compromise solution on Stem Cell research. How nice. Everyone is happy now. Perfect.
I listened to a talk on a Christian network radio show while on a long drive last week. It was a sort of panel discussion (really more of a back slapping session) about how God had heard the panelists prayers and saved all the babies who's voices could not be heard. They compared Bush's decision on stem cell research to the Emancipation Proclamation. They compared Bush to Lincoln. On and on they went about the bravery of Bush. On and on they went about the children, who have no voice, that would now be able to breath the air and grow into productive citizens.
What children? Bush's decision will not prevent a single abortion. Not yet anyhow. The way they went on you would think that Roe V. Wade had just been overturned. So, why all the excitement about saving embryos from serving science instead of being thrown away?
Thing is, the best cells for stem cell research come from fertility clinics. The best cells are from 3 to 9 day old embryos. They do not come from aborted fetuses and they do not come from abortion clinics. They come mostly from fertility clinics. They could also, potentially, come from cloning.
Have you ever heard of Operation Rescue stopping people at the entrance of fertility clinics because some zygotes might be tossed out as a consequence of those people's wish to have a baby? Ever hear of religious right outrage over in vitro fertilization? Me either. So why is it now a big deal that embryos that are not used and destined to be tossed out are an issue? The truth is, neither the religious right or any other pro lifers have ever seen fertility clinics and abortion as a part of the same issue. For that matter, they still don't seem to care if the zygotes are tossed, as long as they are not destroyed in the process of providing stem cells for research. Another truth is that stem cell research wouldn't be an issue if it didn't represent a crack in the door for the abortion foes.
By banning researchers from using any new line of stem cells the President and some members of congress (the house vote banning cloning) are attempting to have set as law that an embryo becomes a full fledged baby at the point of conception. And that thrills pro-lifers. That opens a door for challenges to Roe V. Wade.
There was no compromise. When existing lines are gone, fertility clinics will still be tossing out embryos but any scientist who relies on public funding will have no access to them. The hypocrisy is obvious. This decision was not an attempt to find a middle ground. It was an aggressively anti-science decision made to bolster the pro-life case against abortion.
And that is why those Christian panelists were singing Bush's praises.
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2001 : 22:00:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ever hear of religious right outrage over in vitro fertilization?
This has puzzled me as well. Are they just ignorant and unable to understand that what goes on here is the same thing they protest outside abortion clinics. Why yes, I do think that 
Ignorant, selfish and not able to mind their own damn business. Funny thing is it's well known that many of these folks protest out one mouth and out the other side book appointments so their girlfriends can get abortions before their wives find out! OK OK, so I exaggerate, but it does go on. Protest away before it's a service you require LOL
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2001 : 06:55:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ever hear of religious right outrage over in vitro fertilization?
No but Leon R. Kass, the man who Bush tapped to run the stem cell program was a very vocal opponent of in-vitro fertilization back in the 70's. That's where the references to 'Brave New World' came from. He wrote an article in the New England Journal of Medicine titled, "Babies by Means of in vitro Fertilization: Unethical Experiments on the Unborn?"
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2001 : 07:40:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Ever hear of religious right outrage over in vitro fertilization?
No but Leon R. Kass, the man who Bush tapped to run the stem cell program was a very vocal opponent of in-vitro fertilization back in the 70's. That's where the references to 'Brave New World' came from. He wrote an article in the New England Journal of Medicine titled, "Babies by Means of in vitro Fertilization: Unethical Experiments on the Unborn?"
Exactly. A wolf guarding the chicken coop. Again, no compromise. The whole idea that Bush tried to convey was that he was sympathetic to both sides. But his actions say otherwise. The speech was all smoke and mirrors.
Oh, and while I'm at it, maybe someone can explain to me how a brain dead person who becomes a good candidate as an organ donor, precisely because he has no brain function, is any different from a 5 day old embryo that has no brain and has no chance of developing one because it is going to be tossed out? So far I haven't heard the "lifers" suggest that every single zygote be implanted.
Every way I look at this decision I see the hypocrisy of it.
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2001 : 12:03:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This has puzzled me as well. Are they just ignorant and unable to understand that what goes on here is the same thing they protest outside abortion clinics.
There's more to it than that, @tomic. Research has shown that protesters carrying placards and pictures of aborted zygotes, doesn't play very well in the press. 
(:raig |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2001 : 12:38:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Oh, and while I'm at it, maybe someone can explain to me how a brain dead person who becomes a good candidate as an organ donor, precisely because he has no brain function, is any different from a 5 day old embryo that has no brain and has no chance of developing one because it is going to be tossed out? So far I haven't heard the "lifers" suggest that every single zygote be implanted. [Kil]
For the same reason that adults rush into a burning building to save the children. Or why in Hollywood moral stories [I know, I know, that's an oxymoron] that the old guy sacrifices himself so that the child may live. It's the POTENTIAL life; the unrealized chance at maturing into a productive adult. A brain dead person is generally acknowledged to be beyond recovery. A 5 day old embryo has harmed no one and done nothing wrong. It deserves a shot. I personally don't agree with abortion, but I'm pragmatic enough to realize that legislation against it accomplishes nothing.
(:raig |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2001 : 12:53:19 [Permalink]
|
The fact is that the abortions have taken place and will continue to take place. There is no longer any potential in an aborted fetus and I think that's the point Kil was trying to make. The material will now just go in the garbage and help no sick children...is THAT moral?? I say it is immoral as hell to waste what could be put to good use. What about the potential of a sick child that might otherwise have a new chance at life???
And what about stem cells that become available that are not the result of abortion...stillbirths, abortions done to save a mothers life and the like? Not that even this matters. What's done is done.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2001 : 13:03:29 [Permalink]
|
I was just thinking...
What exactly does it mean that W. "has made a decision"? Doesn't this just mean that he will now veto anything that doesn't agree with it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the President doesn't have the power to directly spend (or forbid spending) any money. He can only veto proposed spending bills. Can't full government funding still be possible with a 2/3rds Senate vote (as long as it passes the House)?
If this is the case, shouldn't as much criticism and pressure be heaped upon members of the Congress and Senate as is being heaped on Bush?
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2001 : 13:25:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the President doesn't have the power to directly spend (or forbid spending) any money. He can only veto proposed spending bills. Can't full government funding still be possible with a 2/3rds Senate vote (as long as it passes the House)?
It's not the whole story surrounding the operation of the venerable U.S. Gummint. (Granted, I'm not really an expert, so if I misstep here, someone clank me on the head).
Congress appropriates funds, but it can be done in a couple of ways. For instance, they can say "Spend forty gazillion dollars to buy new Super Bomber X." Bingo, the money is spent on the new Super Bomber.
Or they can simply fund an agency/bureau/department such as say, Department of the Interior. Those monies are not allocated to anything specific. Most departments/agencies/bureaus answer to the Executive Branch, meaning the President is the boss. So regardless that the department has money, the boss can say "Don't spend the money on green trees anymore; I only want purple trees." Presidential directive; not reviewable by Congress.
I don't know which governmental organization controls the funds that Bush has said will not be spent on stem cell research, but I imagine it falls under the scenario I've described.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2001 : 13:29:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I was just thinking...
What exactly does it mean that W. "has made a decision"? Doesn't this just mean that he will now veto anything that doesn't agree with it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the President doesn't have the power to directly spend (or forbid spending) any money. He can only veto proposed spending bills. Can't full government funding still be possible with a 2/3rds Senate vote (as long as it passes the House)?
If this is the case, shouldn't as much criticism and pressure be heaped upon members of the Congress and Senate as is being heaped on Bush?
------------
Ma gavte la nata!
OK. You are wrong. The President has the ability through Executive Orders to direct the spending of some discrecionary funds. The ones mostly in the limelight was the discontinuation of Planned Parenthood's foreign outreach funding and medical research grants. Congress may, by using it's legislative power, draft a bill funding these programs and then overturn the President's Veto if they so choose. The President may, at his discresion, direct actions and policies to any cabinet or auxilliary department he chooses. During the second world war, Roosevelt acted as his own secratary of the Navy, so this is not a new concept. President Clinton used an Executive Order to fund Planned Parenthood's foreign outreach program.
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2001 : 16:07:19 [Permalink]
|
The stem cell research comes out of the NIH budget and is discretionary. Therefore the President can decide whether or not to fund the research. Bush has stated that he will veto any bill that gives any additional money to this research. A 2/3 majority of both houses is necessary for override. The Senate probably could come up with the necessary votes but the house (where some members are much less open to this research than even the Pres.) is another matter and may be a problem.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2001 : 13:11:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
A 5 day old embryo has harmed no one and done nothing wrong. It deserves a shot. I personally don't agree with abortion, but I'm pragmatic enough to realize that legislation against it accomplishes nothing.
quote:
And what about stem cells that become available that are not the result of abortion...stillbirths, abortions done to save a mothers life and the like? Not that even this matters. What's done is done.
Again, the cells we are talking about do not come from abortions. They come from fertility clinics. And the unused zygotes will be destroyed, stem cell research or no.
Abortion is, I believe, the target of this ban on funding any new line of stem cells. In a scientific context however, aborted fetus's are not important for this research. They are , shall we say, beyoned their prime.
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
: