Bush always doing what's right

[Finna]

Couples who can't conceive through any other method can adopt. What "alternate" option to cancer patients have who have tried every available therapy? If you could explain to me why it's so important for couples to give birth to their kids versus adopting and why that particular need outweighs the needs of millions of people suffering from terminal illnesses and lifelong paralyzing conditions, I'd love to hear it.

 

And that was exaclty what I was trying to say,except Dude said it better. Science should help everyone.

 

And I'm not making the moral judgement that one life is more important than another. I've made my choices, you've made yours. Who am I to question them? However, when my tax dollars are at work I have every right to question why some research is taxpayer funded and other research isn't- ESPECIALLY when it can save someone's life. Perhaps mine. Perhaps yours. Perhaps a childs.

 

That's all.

[Derek Phillips]

I'm not an admin--hell, I haven't even been around lately--but can we take this off personal attacks or comments? I am all for debating legislation and politics, but a bulletin board doesn't seem like the place for us to debate personal family choices.

 

El Kev has beautiful twins and God bless 'em both.

[EL the Famous]

Science should help everyone. I have every right to question why some research is taxpayer funded and other research isn't- ESPECIALLY when it can save someone's life. Perhaps mine. Perhaps yours. Perhaps a childs.

 

I respect that, but again I ask where is it said that the possibility of science helping both those looking to create life and those looking to save it can't co-exist? Do we really have to choose one over the other and by saying that, don't you actually kind of think one life is more important than another?

 

Just like the request for the actual bill to be posted, if someone can both:

 

1. PLEASE comment on the adult cell research and why it wasn't passed if the goal is to help those in need of a cure find one.

2. Post figures that show that the amount of couple who would adopt said cells outweighs the amount of cells required to cure all those people w/ the diseases/conditions this research is the answer for.

 

I'll shut up. Promise.

[bobbob1313]

I think the most telling thing here is that Bill Frist, the guy who said Terry Schiavo was doing really well via videotape, was opposed to this. Of course, he's probably just doing more political posturing, because he thinks he's going to running for president in 2008.

[EL the Famous]

I'm not an admin--hell, I haven't even been around lately--but can we take this off personal attacks or comments? I am all for debating legislation and politics, but a bulletin board doesn't seem like the place for us to debate personal family choices.

 

El Kev has beautiful twins and God bless 'em both.

 

I appreciate that, D...but in no way would I want this discussion to be locked or censored. I'm perfectly fine and won't lose any sleep over this...it's anybody's right to post what they want, whether I find it offensive or not, but i'm going to post right back should I find it so and defend myself when I feel attacked. If it's in some way offending somebody else though, do whatever you have to.

[bobbob1313]

1. PLEASE comment on the adult cell research and why it wasn't passed it the goal is to help those in need of a cure find one.

 

The embryonic stem cells are more adaptable, thus it is said to be easier to use them. With the adult cells, you would need to get the liver cells to put into an unhealthy liver, etc.

 

That said, I'm pretty sure I've read that scientists have taken the eye cells from a fly, and replaced them with eye cells from a human, and they have adapted themselves and become just like the fly's eyes and worked fine. This implies that cells are highly adaptable, so shouldn't we be able to figure something out that can work for everyone?

[Elixir Sue]

Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, in case nobody has posted it yet.

[Finna]

I respect that, but again I ask where is it said that the possibility of science helping both those looking to create life and those looking to save it can't co-exist? Do we really have to choose one over the other and by saying that, don't you actually kind of think one life is more important than another?

 

If you're asking for my opinion an adult's life is 100% more important than the genetic material that may or may not become a child. If I had to choose between saving the people who already exist and never having one new child on the earth- no children it is.

 

My opinion. Your mileage may, and does, vary. And that's okay.

[M. (hristine]

I told myself not to weigh in on this, but just a thought.

 

Medical ethics is careful consideration of not simply the immediate moral cost/benefit, but also the careful consideration for the long term.

 

When organ transplant became a viable option, there was concern about the ethical question of who gets a new organ. Who wins the prize? Should my sister, a long term alcoholic, dying of acute liver disease be a candidate for liver transplant? Should Keith Richards? David Crosby? They have the money to buy a billion livers. Someone has to make these decisions.

 

If stem cell research discovers that stem cells are a panacea for many of the world's ills, where will more stem cells come from? Will poor folks be paid for their reproductive cells to make more embryos for just this purpose? How much would Chris Reeve have been willing to pay to get up and walk again? What's the black market value for the mental clarity of a former president?

[Derek Phillips]

Still looking for a legitimate link to the actual bill Bush vetoed, but here's some interesting related info:

 

Over the past two decades since the first "test-tube baby" was born, an estimated 400,000 frozen embryos have accumulated in more than 400 fertility clinics in the U.S.

 

Some people want to use those embryos for stem cell research that they hope could lead to cures for life-altering diseases. Bush and others say those embryos are human lives and must not be destroyed for science, even if they have the potential to help save lives.

 

Nightlight Christian Adoptions connects biological parents of those embryos with other families trying to conceive; so far 110 children have been born and an additional 20 are due by February.

 

ARTICLE

 

As for adult stem cell research, that continues. Many scientists in the field though think embryonic (or pre-embryonic, as the case may be) stem cell research has the most promise because those cells can become any cell-type in the body. That's why there's a focus on this type. They see it as the fastest route to possible cures. That's not to say adult stem cell research isn't also going on.

 

I don't know whay the adult research bill failed though. Most likely, there's a "poison pill" in the wording. It's a trick to insert soemthing you know the opposition will oppose to force them to vote against the entire bill. Think of John Kerry's "voted for the funding before I voted against it." He had to vote against the entire bill because there was something within it that was too objectionable to overlook.

 

But please, let's not rehash that old story. It's just a high-rpofile example I wanted to use.

[Dude]

Are you fucking kidding me? When did I EVER say that any of our fertility issues compared to the struggles of cancer patients, spinal chord injury patients, alzheimers patients, and so on. Truth be told I don't have to explain to you why it's so important for couples to give birth to their kids versus adopting and why that particular need outweighs the needs of millions of people suffering from terminal illnesses and lifelong paralyzing conditions, because, my guess is, both can co-exist.

 

LOL, well, NOW you're saying they can co-exist, but here you say

 

I was more responding to the poster who made the whole 'snowflake' comment, but it's the may or may not that makes it no less of a clear cut political/science debate, D. If the parents have stated they don't want them, there is no way that they can be used in an adoption scenario and the last option is that they'll be destroyed...of course they should be used to maybe save or maybe not save a life.

 

Just so we're clear, am I wrong for wanting the adoption scenario over their donation to medical research?

 

Which again leads to a whole longer view of society thing where you have to balance the needs of a few parents with the potential benefits to millions. And I'm not targetting you with my comments Kev - I was addressing Bush's party line on this whole thing, which gets into this whole "we're depriving babies of the chance to live" thing, even though miscarriages happen naturally, even though other forces continually stand in the way of conception, etc. That's where my slightly tasteless yet applicable remark came into play - if the hardliners were that serious about saving every baby, they'd go well beyond IVF. It gets into that whole Monty Python "every sperm is sacred" thing. This is 2006 for god's sakes - we ought to get beyond the idea that a clump of cells is anything more than a clump of cells.

 

Anyway, it's great that you are arguing now that research and adoptions could coexist despite your statement that adoptions be given preference over research. Again that's putting the needs of the few over the needs of the many, and as my buddy Spock says, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

 

Anyway, I wasn't trying to get into a personal thing regarding you and your kids. I just think it's asinine to debate the value of a single human life when so many lives are lost and many more are ruined by these illnesses and conditions.

[darkstar]

I told myself not to weigh in on this, but just a thought.

 

Medical ethics is careful consideration of not simply the immediate moral cost/benefit, but also the careful consideration for the long term.

 

When organ transplant became a viable option, there was concern about the ethical question of who gets a new organ. Who wins the prize? Should my sister, a long term alcoholic, dying of acute liver disease be a candidate for liver transplant? Should Keith Richards? David Crosby? They have the money to buy a billion livers. Someone has to make these decisions.

 

If stem cell research discovers that stem cells are a panacea for many of the world's ills, where will more stem cells come from? Will poor folks be paid for their reproductive cells to make more embryos for just this purpose? How much would Chris Reeve have been willing to pay to get up and walk again? What's the black market value for the mental clarity of a former president?

 

 

Interesting questions you bring about....good post and obviously Keef gets the new liver before Crosby

Edited July 20, 2006 by darkstar

[EL the Famous]

If you're asking for my opinion an adult's life is 100% more important than the genetic material that may or may not become a child. If I had to choose between saving the people who already exist and never having one new child on the earth- no children it is.

 

My opinion. Your mileage may, and does, vary. And that's okay.

 

Actually, i'm asking for your opinion if the adult's life that may or may not be saved more important than the genetic material that may or may not become a child. Unless you have more defintive info than I do that this research is completely unfailable in providing a cure and, that said cures are completely unfailable.

 

I respect your opinion, but want to make sure we're expressing them w/ all things considered. Hopefully, that's okay too.

[cryptique]

Interesting questions you bring about....good post and obviously Keef gets the new liver before Crosby

 

Crosby at his best was better than Keef at his best, in my opinion. And I love the Stones, so that's saying something.

[Guest ScottHoward]

What about Bing Crosby? That guy loved to drink.

[Lammycat]

 

Crosby at his best was better than Keef at his best, in my opinion. And I love the Stones, so that's saying something.

I'm sure there are plenty of livers for all the filthy rich rockers.

[M. (hristine]

Interesting questions you bring about....good post and obviously Keef gets the new liver before Crosby

Crosby actually got a new liver in 1994.

[gogo]

As he vetoed the bill, he signed another that was passed unanimously in both chambers that would ban "fetal farming," the prospect of raising and aborting fetuses for scientific research.

Is this even a real thing? Has anyone ever actually proposed doing this?

Which, comes back to the fact that the third bill for another viable option for adult cell research being overturned makes no sense to me and makes me think that this is just another political issue to garner votes by BOTH sides and has little to do w/ actually saving lives pro-research or not. I'm still the only person to bring that up here.

The whole situation stinks of political posturing, on all sides. See the "fetal farming" issue, above; the bill passed unanimously in both chambers, because it's an easy sell to pro-life groups, and really, the fetal farming lobby is useless. Bastards can't get a bill passed to save their lives.

 

 

 

What about Bing Crosby? That guy loved to drink.

You just shut it, Satchel-Ass.

[Guest ScottHoward]

You just shut it, Satchel-Ass.

[darkstar]

 

Crosby at his best was better than Keef at his best, in my opinion. And I love the Stones, so that's saying something.

 

 

That's crazy talk!

 

Didn't mean to hijack the thread with humor.....lotta questions about this whole thing. And of course anytime there is the question of ethics and morality a lot of emotions get raised. It's hard to look at without getting conflicting thoughts. Sure I am all for medical research and using stem cells to erradicate horrible conditions and disease, but would I want (just using my twisted thinking here folks, don't get upset...it's just a what if..) some crazy scheme going on where we had hundreds of breeders incubating embryos for that purpose? Lots of questions...and of course when this gets political (doesn't everything?) you get a whole 'nother layer of madness going on. Just my 2 cents.

[plasticeyeball]

I posted this this morning but a few people seem to be missing it

 

here's a summary from the AP.

To qualify for federal funding under the bill, newer embryos could be used in studies only if they:

_Were created for the purposes of fertility treatment.

_Were donated by in vitro fertilization clinics with written, informed consent of those being being treated.

_Were "in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment" and would never be implanted in a woman.

_Would otherwise be discarded, as determined by those seeking treatment.

_Were not donated by patients induced to do so by financial or other incentives.

__

Source: "The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005," H.R. 810.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

which is why parading those kids around as possible outcomes of the cells in question is disgusting and utter bullshit.

 

as i said yesterday, the 2 choices are use them for research or throw them in the garbage and he chose the garbage.

[EL the Famous]

Anyway, it's great that you are arguing now that research and adoptions could coexist despite your statement that adoptions be given preference over research. Again that's putting the needs of the few over the needs of the many, and as my buddy Spock says, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

Anyway, I wasn't trying to get into a personal thing regarding you and your kids. I just think it's asinine to debate the value of a single human life when so many lives are lost and many more are ruined by these illnesses and conditions.

 

See my response to Finna. I simply stated that the option for these cells to be used in ART be the first option and then medical research. If you have numbers to show me that there isn't enough to go around and that's putting the needs of the few over the needs of the many, i'll stand down. Then, if you want to get down to brass tacks, provide me w/ the same info Finna is working on how these cells are a clear cut cure that will save the millions of lives you keep referring to.

 

Over the past two decades since the first "test-tube baby" was born, an estimated 400,000 frozen embryos have accumulated in more than 400 fertility clinics in the U.S.

 

Nightlight Christian Adoptions connects biological parents of those embryos with other families trying to conceive; so far 110 children have been born and an additional 20 are due by February.

 

400,000 - 130 = 399,870. Seems like there's enough to go around and, considering the original intent of these 'cluster of cells' was to produce a child in the first place...why is it so crazy that they go on to do so, should the biological parents choose that? You make it sound like the same cluster will be placed directly into someone w/ cancer and they'll be cured...one could argue it's really a case of a possible human life or reserach, not another life. Again, my point is more thsi isn't so black and white.

 

The fact that you say that this isn't personal and at the same time you tell me i'm asinine to debate the value of a single human life when so many lives are lost and many more are ruined by these illnesses and conditions...whatever. Fine, if me wanting to have my sons over research that may or may not save someone's life I don't even know make me an asshole, i'm an asshole who would do it all over again. That, not one, but TWO lives are more important to me than the millions I don't know. If to cure cancer, someone had to slaughter your niece/nephew (please, which is it?) would you do it? That's a stretch and completely out there...but so is being a parent. I'd do anything for my kids and, likely sacrifice someobdy else's life (including my own) to keep them here.

 

For you, this may be an easy stance to take on a policy...especially one put forth by a president you'd take every opportunity to go against due to your own political affiliation...for me, not so much. I guess I shouldn't expect you to understand, when it's so hard for me to explain.

[darkstar]

Yeah, thanks Eyeball....I hear that. Hey I'm all for the research....just saying you know stuff like this gets people crazy. I'm willing to wager that Bush's decision wasn't based on any moral or ethical thinking, he's just pandering for votes from the Christian Conservative types. Even though he is not up for re-election he still needs their good graces to get his agenda passed. Typical politico....they don't give a shit, just want to get votes

[M. (hristine]

I posted this this morning but a few people seem to be missing it

"To qualify for federal funding under the bill, newer embryos could be used in studies only if they..."

 

I understand that we're talking about federal funding for research.

 

I tend to take a longer view than hot button political topics. Just tossing around some stuff outta my head.

There I go, extrapolating again. Doh!

 

Though it is a certainty that George Bush has appalling table manners and posture.

[plasticeyeball]

also, an article that talks about the need for both adult and embryonic scr

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/4059176.html

 

Scientists see value in both embryonic, adult stem cells

Local researchers lament veto, hope field will prosper

By TODD ACKERMAN

Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

The political debate about stem-cell research is a classic case of conjunction dysfunction, say local scientists, with opposing sides using the word "or" when they should have been using "and."

By making the issue an either-or proposition