|
Bush issues first veto in 5.5 years. Congress FINALLY crossed the line ... hmm wait (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
sure. simple. there will be no Federal funding for the destruction of embryos. whether there in the "trash" is a seperate issue to me.
people can farm, dumpster dive, rob, donate embryos all day long in this country. a fact. it stops at the Federal level as far as i, the President, a handful of lawmakers and 50% of this country is concerned. |
Wait. The federal funding does not further the destruction of embryos ... these embryos are destroyed as a part of the processes of fertility clinics. So if the President has a moral objection to the issue at hand, WHY doesn't he try to pass legislation or do SOMETHING to ban the behavior of fertilization clinics??? The government already sanctions the destruction of embroys by allowing this behaviour to happen legally. However, you're saying that by providing funding for science to study the "murder" that the government already allows violates some ethical standards??? Please explain.
| quote: |
the severe lack of any private/corporate funding should give you an idea of how dodgey and intelectually dishonest this whole debate is. maybe this will change now. who knows.
|
What? Do you know how much funding states provide towards stem celled research? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Wait. The federal funding does not further the destruction of embryos ... these embryos are destroyed as a part of the processes of fertility clinics. So if the President has a moral objection to the issue at hand, WHY doesn't he try to pass legislation or do SOMETHING to ban the behavior of fertilization clinics??? |
the difference is fertility clinics deal in the process of creating babies. each embryo is treated as if it were going to term. and if it isn't it's frozen for it's potential as a human. to be honest i don't know how many or percentage of embryos are not utilized by clinics but i'll bet the farm that it's a finite supply. the needs of ESC research labs could go into countless of farmed then destroyed viable embryos. something the Feds should not touch with a 10' pole. why are you f**king arguing with me about this?| quote: | | The government already sanctions the destruction of embroys by allowing this behaviour to happen legally. However, you're saying that by providing funding for science to study the "murder" that the government already allows violates some ethical standards??? Please explain. |
why do i have to distinguish written law and monetary subsidy to you, of all people? why would the President choose that fight?
explain? explain why the 2nd Amendment protects my right to purchase something to kill you with? you will have answered your own question.
| quote: | | What? Do you know how much funding states provide towards stem celled research? |
no. you wanna tell me? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
oh this is a good one for you proponents of stem cell research. read this and ask yourself of your lawmakers, wtf?
| quote: | July 19, 2006, 4:18 p.m.
Who’s “Anti-Science” Now?
Proponents of embryonic-stem-cell research put themselves in a bad position.
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
Proponents of embryo-destroying research lost one of their favorite knee-jerk rhetorical points on Tuesday, as they succeeded in killing a bill that would have funded alternatives to embryo-destroying research. It’s hard to dismiss your opponents as “anti-science” when you’ve voted against it yourself.
The Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act was a great constructive opportunity for Congress. Early on Tuesday, a leading pro-life senator, Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum (who is in a tough reelection battle and could afford to be focusing on other things right now — like, oh, saving his political life), rattled off his record of commitment to stem-cell-research advocacy, none of it destructive. He talked about his attempt at finding a “middle ground” by sponsoring a bill to fund adult-stem-cell and other non-embryo-destroying research. This “alternatives” bill was even cosponsored by his Pennsylvania colleague Arlen Specter (who supports embryo research, abortion . . . very many things a Santorum never will). The bill, in both its House and its Senate version, was an embrace of research that is free of embryonic-stem-cell research’s unavoidable ethical baggage.
But on Tuesday afternoon, Delaware Republican Mike Castle, co-sponsor of a bill that would federally fund embryonic-stem-cell research for the first time, sent around an e-mail urging colleagues to vote against Santorum’s alternatives bill. (Richard Doerflinger responds to his e-mail here.) Since they already knew the president would veto the Castle bill, and since embryonic-stem-cell research will always be a lightning rod for political and moral debate, the alternatives bill was a gift to any politician. Embryo-research stalwart Mike Castle and, say, embryo-protection stalwart (Dr.) Dave Weldon could have united behind it. Given Congress’s dismal approval ratings, it would have even been good politics. Look at what we can do when we set our minds to it! We’re pro-hope, and pro-research, and pro-consensus.
So much for that. Under a rules suspension Tuesday night, the bill failed to get the two-thirds needed for passage, thanks to Castle’s eleventh-hour work. Even in the Senate, where the alternatives bill garnered unanimous support in the final roll call, Minority Leader Harry Reid couldn’t help but dismiss it as “meaningless.”
But Tuesday’s alternatives takedown in the House is about much more than just one vote. Limits always seem to be too limiting for proponents of embryonic-stem-cell research and cloning. The Beltway battle this week has had shades of a Bay State fight last year. The governor there, Republican Mitt Romney, met proponents of cloning research halfway. He said, O.K., the state government won’t fund it, but you can use so-called surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization procedures as long as you don’t create new embryos. But there was no line of legislators outside his door waiting to work with him. All or nothing, proponents of clone-and-kill research proclaimed. We saw something similar in New Jersey in late 2003. As Wesley Smith, author of The Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America, put it to me at the time, “It is remarkable — and very telling — that in less then two years, we have gone from ‘only’ wanting to harvest the stem cells from embryos left over from IVF procedures, to a state senate passing legislation that would permit the implantation and gestation of cloned fetuses to the ninth month, before requiring their destruction. This is not just a slide down a slippery slope, it is a headfirst plunge into the abyss.” Like the House vote Tuesday night, the Garden State debate was instructive.
On the federal level this week we’ve seen supposed proponents of stem-cell research say, No, none of this alternatives stuff, we only want embryonic-stem-cell research. The embryo is everything. Or rather, destroying embryos is everything — that’s where they want research to be focused, and they’re happy to hold research that is free of embryonic entanglements hostage. Coming from a crowd that regularly throws the word “anti-science” at those who oppose embryo destruction and cloning, this is pretty rich. When given the option to vote for a bill that nearly no one could sensibly disagree with — to explore already successful and other less-ethically-entangled research, like a spoiled two-year-old who wants his way and only his way even if it’s impractical and Dad has already said no, so went the House.
When given the option to vote for a bill that nearly no one could sensibly disagree with, they acted like spoiled two-year-olds who want their way and only their way — even if it’s impractical and Dad has already said “no.” They’ve given opponents a great campaign ad for November, turning the “anti-science” label on them: Care more about what the bioethics lobby wants than advancing science? Talk about hopeless.
Tuesday’s House action gives an advantage to those who talk about the sanctity of human life, specifically those who voted against the federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research and for the alternatives bill. A third of the members of House of Representatives will support stem-cell research only if it involves the destruction of embryos? Otherwise they’re against it? This is what they want their position to be? As Americans increasingly pay attention to these confusing issues, such clear Party of Death votes as we saw Tuesday night in the House should be as deadly to political careers as they are to life. |
|
|
|
| skot_e |
I'm first to admit I'm not really clued up on this topic, but I gather from what i have read here that it would be perfectly fine for me and a female partner to organise for our gametes to be joined in a scientific way and to then use them to cure my (insert afliction).
ie the embryo is 'manufacture' purely to cure me and with no intent on using it to have a child.
if that's the case, are people who are cashed up like Reeve and Fox going about this procedure? it seems like they (were) are not . I don't know why they wouldn't. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| itd take more than stem cells to cure reeve of his affliction :p |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
let someone else dig through your trash baby killer. not my government. |
Wow, unreal, labelling someone such a disgusting phrase when our president, yes your government, created a war that did a bang up job on a whole lot of babies I'm sure, not to mention the current scenario in Lebanon. Yeah nice concern for those babies. I sometimes wonder about the thought pattern of people. This is why I could never cast another vote for the current Republican party as it stands under an assanine leadership of convenient moralists and hypocritical politicians. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
yeah i agree.
let someone else dig through YOUR trash. not my government.
edit> sorry that was out of line. |
Well I'm certainly glad you dropped the "baby killer" label. Really does demonstrate your maturity in the matter.
And I do believe I've made myself a bit clear in the past regarding abortion issues in the past. If you actually read and comprehended anything I've written, I believe you would reconsider your bull labelling.
But then again, we are talking about you, the ing little turdbag who does little to add to a debate but labelling and ad hominems, so the level of surprise is really quite low. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
the difference is fertility clinics deal in the process of creating babies. each embryo is treated as if it were going to term. and if it isn't it's frozen for it's potential as a human. to be honest i don't know how many or percentage of embryos are not utilized by clinics but i'll bet the farm that it's a finite supply. the needs of ESC research labs could go into countless of farmed then destroyed viable embryos. something the Feds should not touch with a 10' pole. why are you f**king arguing with me about this? why do i have to distinguish written law and monetary subsidy to you, of all people? why would the President choose that fight? |
Written law and monetary subsidy is ing irrelevant to Occ's main point. Understand this basic principle:
| quote: | This legislation does NOT allow funding for the creation or destruction of embryos. This is already outlawed in the annual Dickey-Wicker Amendment that is attached as a rider to the Labor HHS Education Appropriations Bill. Rather it allows federally funded research on stem cell lines derived ethically according to the following principles:
*The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment. Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
*The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.
http://www.house.gov/castle/pr_06_S...dentletter.html
|
These embryos are being destroyed, period. There's nothing right now that this President, this GOP-led Congress, or anyone else is doing to protect these embryos that are being thrown down the drain.
All this bill does that was a big bipartisan bill and is supported by some 67% of Americans is utilizing those embryos, a cluster of 20 ing cells not yet determined to be anything at all, that were going to be destroyed anyway to be utilized for disease and ailment reseach.
You ing get it yet? All Bush did was allow those embryos to be destroyed, rather than utilize them for possibilities into life-saving research.
ing tell me about your culture of life, please. Tell me how allowing those embryos to be thrown away instead of finding possibilities for cures like Hodgekin's disease like your Senator Specter suffers is somehow protecting the sanctity of life.
That makes dips like you, Brownback, and Bush the biggest ing baby killers on the planet with your asinine bull hypocricy. You have absolutely nothing to offer in this debate on that simple point, and you cannot separate that issue as much as you would want to because that point IS the ing debate.
As for the alternatives bill, those are all well and good but in essence they offer miniscule research and $ spent to that which is much more promising to embryonic research. Here in Kansas City at our Stowers Institute of Research we have some of the most prominent scientists working on those cell lines offered as well as working on getting the funds for more cell lines. Few if any real credible scientists would consider it a point of contention that adult stem cells offer as much promise as the embryonic stem cell lines. That's not to dismiss adult stem cells altogether, but clearly the funding and promise must go where the research has clearly led up to date - the embryonic stem cell lines:
| quote: | When White House political adviser Karl Rove signaled last week that President Bush planned to veto the stem cell bill being considered by the Senate, the reasons he gave went beyond the president's moral qualms with research on human embryos.
In fact, Rove waded into deeply contentious scientific territory, telling the Denver Post's editorial board that researchers have found "far more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells."....
But Rove's negative appraisal of embryonic stem cell research--echoed by many opponents of funding for such research--is inaccurate, according to most stem cell research scientists, including a dozen contacted for this story.
The field of stem cell medicine is too young and unproven to make such judgments, experts say. Many of those researchers either specialize in adult stem cells or share Bush's moral reservations about embryonic stem cells.
"[Rove's] statement is just not true," said Dr. Michael Clarke, associate director of the stem cell institute at Stanford University, who in 2003 published the first study showing how adult stem cells replenish themselves.
If opponents of embryonic stem cell research object on moral grounds, "I'm willing to live with that," Clarke said, though he disagrees. But, he said, "I'm not willing to live with statements that are misleading."
Dr. Markus Grompe, director of the stem cell center at the Oregon Health and Science University, is a Catholic who objects to research involving the destruction of embryos and is seeking alternative ways of making stem cells. But Grompe said there is "no factual basis to compare the promise" of adult stem cells and cells taken from embryos.
Grompe said, "I think it's a problem when [opponents of embryonic research] make a scientific argument as opposed to stating the real reason they are opposed--which is [that] it's a moral, ethical problem."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/health/chi-0607190211jul19,1,5676240.story?ctrack=1&cset=true |
Not only is there promise for disease cures, but other avenues in my own line of research in Physical Therapy are being carved such as Diabetic neuropathy, fibromyalgia, spinal cord injuries, amputees, strokes, cardiovascular diseases, and on and on. The possibilities are endless.
So if you really want to get into a scientific debate with me on this, ing step on up and let's see where it goes. If you want to keep it political, well , if you can get past the point of Bush throwing away those embryos with his veto instead of somehow protecting them in the first place, rather than having those discarded embryos utilized for endless possibitities to enhance and protect life, then we might actually have a debate on our hands. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
I mean, it's not like Bush who's a ing advocate for Creationism isn't a top notch scientist or anything. Of course Rove and Tony Snow and the rest of the minority Right Wing Noise Machine ing blowhards have some terrific research credentials in their back pockets as well. But since Q5 loooves printing out press releases by these folks, I guess it's only fair that I do the same, from MSNBC's Arthur Caplan, MD:
| quote: | An administration that has shown itself over and over again to have trouble telling the truth is now telling Americans in wheelchairs, those with damaged hearts, babies who are diabetic and those left immobile by Parkinsonism not to worry. The president, whose grasp of science left him unable to identify creationism as a fundamentally religious idea, and his trusty sidekick Karl Rove, rarely seen in a white lab coat but who knows something about rats, having been in Washington for some time now, claim to know best which medical research is most likely to benefit diseased Americans in the future.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13935219/ |
|
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
take it or leave it. that dumb son of a bitch pisses me off every time i read his crap. |
Tough you ing nutsack. Do us all a favor and actually bring forth a point with evidence to support it or crawl back under that ing rock you love to hide under so often. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
And one other point to consider for all you "culture of life" folks out there. If, indeed you are arguing that the blastocyst is a human life with a soul, then what occurs when an extra soul develops during tetragametic chimerism?:
| quote: | | the chimera is formed from the merger of two fraternal twins in a very early (zygote or blastocyst) phase. As such, they can be male, female, or hermaphroditic…As of 2003, there were about 30-40 human cases in the literature, according to New Scientist |
So shall we be banning all IVF techniques then, considering:
| quote: | the incidence of tetragametic chimerism is set to rise because of modern fertility techniques that increase the rate of twinning. In 1998, they reported a case of a chimeric IVF baby who resulted from the accidental fusion of a male embryo and a female embryo. The child was outwardly male, but the left hand side of his internal reproductive system had developed as an ovary and fallopian tube.
source: New Scientist vol 180 issue 2421 |
In this lovely world of Bush and Q5, one can only suspect such bannings are next..... |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Wait a ing second here. Did Tony Snow actually say this on 7/18?:
| quote: | “There is nothing that makes embryonic stem cell research illegal. It simply says that the federal government will not finance it.
As you know, there are ongoing efforts in some states, including, I think, California and Massachusetts, to use state money for it. And I dare say if people think that there’s a market for it, they’re going to support it handsomely.
The simple answer is he thinks murder’s wrong.” |
So if I'm to get his logic right here, murder on the Federally-funded level is wrong, but murder on the State level or if there's a profit inolved is okay?
Jesus ing Christ, I really don't know what else to say here. Are you sure, Q5, these are the dips you want to support? This is just such a ing unbelievable stance on this issue that I would hope even you could see the problems with their rhetoric. |
|
|
|
|
