Pajamas Media

142 Comments

1. e:

Good article. And like you hinted at above, adult stem cells are already being used in (experimental) treatments in humans. They also have the benefit of already being the patient’s cells.

But embryonic stem cell research was never about science or finding health for most of the demagogues, it was just a chance for them to undermine the anti-abortion crowd.

Mar 10, 2009 - 6:07 am 2. MarkD:

If it were likely to be profitable, private industry would be doing it. It was never illegal, it was merely not allowed to use Federal funds to do it. But this time, it’ll be different, I’m sure.

Mar 10, 2009 - 6:12 am 3. WR Jonas:

It is another lowly excuse to turn on the Federal faucet for all of those researchers and lab assistants to squander taxpayers dollars. Where are the results of nearly 15 years of research? Has anything actually been accomplished ? Or is this like Government sponsored weather research which spends billions and billions and now every University in the land has a weather research department duplicating thousands of other programs that waste the public treasure?
Show us some results.

Mar 10, 2009 - 6:39 am 4. Expose The Media » President Obama Makes Taxpayers Fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research:

[...] Examples Of Liberal Media Bias President Obama Makes Taxpayers Fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research Published on March 10, 2009 by bella (Melissa Cloutier

Mar 10, 2009 - 6:41 am 5. Craig:

“Second, human embryonic stem cell research was not banned generally, nor was any other kind of stem cell research banned. The previous executive order specifically prevented government funds from being used for embryonic stem cell research.”

That is the quintessential key to this whole bruhaha. Liberals have been howling like this was Roe v Wade redux. If the biotech industry was so enamored with the prospects of great discoveries or at the least the likelihood of discovery- they would’ve been all over ESC like Al Gore at a buffet table.

Mar 10, 2009 - 6:50 am 6. Cybergeezer:

Analyzing Obama’s cellular make-up would result in tendons instead of brain cells; That is what makes him look animated. Someone has to pull the tendons. And Congress animates him to look like he is the puppeteer instead of the puppet.

Mar 10, 2009 - 7:03 am 7. Scott:

At last check, still not one use for these cells, many hints of promising things aimed at delivering more funding and continuing this ridiculous research. Now, thanks to our big spender in chief we will also be paying for at least four more years of “promising research”.

Mar 10, 2009 - 7:19 am 8. dude1394:

So how much federal dollars have gone into ESC research versus non ESC research since dubya signed his law? It seems to be the missing data.

If the research dollars are equal then pretty obviously it hasn’t had an impact and the left is just posturing on this issue.

If the research dollars are greatly unequal then that would provide information from folks opposed to possibly understand their opponents position.

Mar 10, 2009 - 7:19 am 9. Middleman:

Grant money in any research almost always has strings attached. The global warming windfall scientists are reaping is evidence of that. However, I’m all for lifting the ban. If embryonic stem cells can be used to help people suffering now, I’m all for it.
Better that than some pipe dream that the embryo may someday be a child. A child the same pro-life crowd would howl to have tried as an adult if he/she were to commit a crime.

Mar 10, 2009 - 7:19 am 10. Ian Thorpe:

The bigging up of Obama’s “commitment to science” on this issue is just the usual Obamessiah puff. Embryo stem cell research has been under way for more than two decades and has produced nothing useful in the way of therapies while stem cell research using cells harvested from umbilical and placenta tissue and blood have produced many promising results. So unless there is some hidden agenda there is no point continuing it.

Mar 10, 2009 - 7:48 am 11. Ben Grivno:

Wonderful synopsis of the general conservative consensus on the federal funding of stem cell research.

Mar 10, 2009 - 8:21 am 12. mk:

Except for one tiny little problem:
Embryonic Stem Cells DON’T WORK that way people think they do. Adult Stem cells and umbilical stem cells work for treating certain disease. In fact, ESC’s have only proven to make problems worse….
The private sector has shown no interest in ESC’s because the scientists therein know that the research is basically useless….

Mar 10, 2009 - 8:23 am 13. drjohn:

From the NY Times:

“Despite an F.D.A.-approved safety test of embryonic stem cells in spinal cord injury that the Geron Corporation began in January, many scientists believe that putting stem-cell-derived tissues into patients lies a long way off. Embryonic stem cells have their drawbacks. They cause tumors, and the adult cells derived from them may be rejected by the patient’s immune system. Furthermore, whatever disease process caused the patients’ tissue cells to die is likely to kill introduced cells as well. All these problems may be solvable, but so far none have been solved.”

Bush’s policy inspired the development of adult stem cells, which are likely to be more successful than embryonic stemm cells, but look for the media to credit Obama for that.

The media already has depicted Obama as the Abraham Lincoln of stem cells.

Mar 10, 2009 - 8:34 am 14. jvon:

My feeling on this is simple. We’ve been hearing for eight years about the miracles that we were preventing from happening by barring Federal spending on embryonic stem cells. That was a little irritating (there was no proof whatsoever that the research would have tangible results), but now is our chance to demand results.

I, for one, will be standing here tapping my foot.

Well?

Mar 10, 2009 - 8:43 am 15. David W. Lincoln:

There are people who will see only those things
that they want to see, and what they want to see
are those things which support their perspective.

At one stage of life, those in favour of embryonic stem cell research, were embryos.

All are equal, but some are more equal, is a statement that describes them quite well.

Mar 10, 2009 - 9:00 am 16. Ms. Attitude:

9. Middleman….Did you read the article? It was never banned!! It just did not get federal funding…I gather you like having your money thrown out the window. If it was cutting edge then it would have been funded by private industry….you know, those things that exist in a free market!

Mar 10, 2009 - 9:01 am 17. Middleman:

Ms. Attitude,
A large percentage of grant money to fund research comes from the Federal government and much of that research comes from Universities. Private industry only funds what it thinks might be a good idea. I stress the word might because they aren’t about ideas, but rather the bottom line. That leaves a lot of potentially ground breaking discoveries on the table left to rot. It’s not like Universities and research facilities can discover potential findings and then churn and burn product like a sweatshop. I have a good friend whose been working on a cancer drug for the past 12 years that’s just now moving into human testing. They probably would have gotten there sooner, but the funding tap dried out during the Bush administration.

Mar 10, 2009 - 9:26 am 18. Craig:

“They probably would have gotten there sooner, but the funding tap dried out during the Bush administration.”

That is an absolute load of BS. More money goes into cancer and cancer research than any of the next 20 diseases combined. It dwarfs the entire herd.

Mar 10, 2009 - 9:41 am 19. Michael:

These continual caricatures of the Bush administration are annoying. There may be other undiscussed examples but this was not about being antiscience, unless you subscribe to the notion that gassing Jews had to be good because they made good lampshades, but being opposed to the destruction of human life. One may have a different view but I think it really only highlights a guilt over abortion to be so aggressive toward Mr. Bush.

Mar 10, 2009 - 9:44 am 20. RE:

To this in favor of using human embryos as a resource, it is not about finding cures. Were it about finding cures, they would be ecstatic with the breakthroughs and advances using adult stem cells. An honorable person would be thrilled that such progress would be made without raising the ethical question of murder.

It is a philosophical debate about the value of human life – Classical Liberalism versus postmodernism, individual rights versus the collective.

The embryonic stem cell research advocates are a very dark and dishonest lot.

Mar 10, 2009 - 10:02 am 21. Pete:

So, should IV Fertilization be banned then? Numerous embryos are produced and THROWN AWAY in this process. So if embryonic stem-cell research is nothing short of outright murder, should the IV doctors also go to prison as well?

I guess that means that Nancy Reagan herself is also a cold blooded murderer who seeks to clone a master race as well.

Mar 10, 2009 - 10:12 am 22. Pete:

To #20, if modern conservatism is all about “individual rights”, then why do you constantly seek to use government to go after people for consensual behavior in the bedroom?

Mar 10, 2009 - 10:13 am 23. Ms. Attitude:

17. Middleman,

Isn’t it amazing how the industrial revolution, with all of it’s findings and advancements, occurred without the help of taxpayers money?

Mar 10, 2009 - 10:23 am 24. Pete:

19 – Michael, you violated Godwin’s Law pretty quickly. Epic Fail.

Mar 10, 2009 - 10:24 am 25. Pete:

23 Ms Attitude, seriously, you’re making a comparison between 1820’s economics and 21st Century scientific research?

(btw…when you say “it’s findings”, you are actually saying “it is findings”. I guess the modern conservative movement’s disdain of knowledge and education is bearing some fruit)

Mar 10, 2009 - 10:27 am 26. Paul of Alexandria:

Pete (22):
Conservatives aren’t all about “individual rights” per se. Conservatives are about balancing the rights and needs of the community (the State) vs the rights and needs of the individual. In general, the best compromise is to grant the government the minimal power necessary to do the job, and to keep governmental activity at the lowest level possible: community rather than state, state rather than federal. Conservatives also tend to trust historically proven techniques and methods rather than whatever unproven fad the ivory-tower thinkers have thought up recently.

Nobody that I know of is trying to use “government to go after people for consensual behavior in the bedroom”. However, in the interests of society and the communal wellbeing there are limits to the behaviors that we will promote and publically accept. Some behaviors are also blatently unacceptable because there is a long-term risk to the corporate wellbeing.

Mar 10, 2009 - 10:31 am 27. Meryl:

Once again, this circumstance/public discourse illustrates that the truth and the reality of the situation is not relevant.

The people who are in power will wield that power regardless of the light effectively exposing the lies.

Even within this thread, there are the usual evidences of things being twisted by pro-abortion folks.

22Pete…that’s a crock. I couldn’t care less what anyone does in their bedroom. But I care a great deal if they take what is done in their bedroom and:

1. Demand that I approve of it.
2. Demand that it be taught to my children and grandchildren, using my tax dollars.
3. Demand that my tax dollars be used to solve the health problems that result.
4. Demand the “right” to perform that behavior publicly in parades and demand that those watching dare not object.

I am sick to death of homosexuals demanding that I approve of their homosexuality.

Your spit-comment illustrates the accuracy of my first paragraph.

Mar 10, 2009 - 10:38 am 28. Pete:

Paul, you said “Nobody that I know of is trying to use “government to go after people for consensual behavior in the bedroom”. However, in the interests of society and the communal wellbeing there are limits to the behaviors that we will promote and publically accept. Some behaviors are also blatently unacceptable because there is a long-term risk to the corporate wellbeing.”

No one said anything about PROMOTING anything. If two men or two women have a consensual relationship, then the conservatives concerned with individual liberties shouldn’t give two whits, especially since at no time have any of you ever shown ACTUAL HARM to society because of such associations.

The phrase “promote and accept” is problematic, because those very words were spoken in the 1960’s by people who fought vehemently to preserve laws banning interracial relationships.

Mar 10, 2009 - 10:41 am 29. Joe Bison:

Let us rejoice we have freed science from
moral issues. Science is now free to become
political science.

Under the Democrats and Obama science follows
a political agenda. There is the proper course
and the wrong course. Those following the
Obama path will be rewarded with money, positions and a voice. The wrong path will be cut off from funding, ridiculed and hopefully rehabilitated.

Embryonic stem cell research as others have
noted was always about positioning abortion
into the category of a societal good thing.
It will take time to shape public opinion,
but watch when the other shoe drops.

Mar 10, 2009 - 10:50 am 30. Pete:

Meryl

22Pete…that’s a crock. I couldn’t care less what anyone does in their bedroom. But I care a great deal if they take what is done in their bedroom and:

1. Demand that I approve of it.
2. Demand that it be taught to my children and grandchildren, using my tax dollars.
3. Demand that my tax dollars be used to solve the health problems that result.
4. Demand the “right” to perform that behavior publicly in parades and demand that those watching dare not object.

-0-

Let’s see

1. If you “don’t care”, then why are you so huffy about being asked to “approve”, especially since you say that you “don’t care”

2. What’s “being taught” to anyone using “your tax dollars”? Oh, you mean that kids are taught that gay people a) exist and b) are human beings? Again, since you said that you DON’T CARE, then it shouldn’t matter.

3. Again, you said that you DON’T CARE what people do in their bedrooms, but I guess by complaining about health care, I guess you do care? I take it that health funds should also not be used to treat STRAIGHT people with STDs as well?

4. Ah, the “gay pride parade” canard. Just how often do you think that actually occurs? What am I saying, you said that you don’t care about consensual activity.

Guess what, chuckles. In 20 years, fools like you won’t hold sway over social policy anymore, and when society DOESN’T collapse younger generations are going to say “why did those idiot conservatives freak out over homosexuality all the time back then?”

Mar 10, 2009 - 10:51 am 31. Ms. Attitude:

25. Pete:(btw…when you say “it’s findings”, you are actually saying “it is findings”. I guess the modern conservative movement’s disdain of knowledge and education is bearing some fruit)

An apostrophe is also used with possessive nouns.

I guess it’s easier for you to attack me than admit you are wrong.

Mar 10, 2009 - 10:54 am 32. Houghton M:

Obama not only authorized federal funding (my tax money) for embryonic stem cell research but he rescinded Pres. Bush’s order directing NIH to do all it could to further adult stem cell research.

This is pure politics manipulating science.

It is evil.

Mar 10, 2009 - 10:56 am 33. Pete:

Ms Attitude, your command of grammar is pretty poor. Yes, an apostrophe can be used as a possessive. HOWEVER, when you said “it’s findings”, you actually said “it is findings”. The proper way to say that phrase as a possessive is “its findings”.

However, your comparison of mid 19th Century economics to 21st Century Scientific Research was so absurd, I doubt that any argument refuting it will fall on deaf ears with you.

Tell me, Ms. Tude, the unbelievable advances in engineering developed by NASA used taxpayer funds. Should the entire space program have been entirely private? The internet was developed using taxpayer funds, should that have been entirely private? If I’m not mistaken, the research that led to the POLIO VACCINE was partially funded with government grants.

Oh, well. At least try to enroll in a night school so you can learn to spell and use proper grammar.

Mar 10, 2009 - 11:06 am 34. David S:

The Bush policy on stem cells was arbitrary, capricious, and pointless.

Obama did us all a favor by removing obstacles to life-saving research.

Peace.

DS

Mar 10, 2009 - 11:09 am 35. sodak:

Pete #22 examples please, what laws were passed?
Who would you says is trying to limit an individuals right to LIVE AND LET LIVE, ie smoke on private property, ware a seat belt, the number and kind of calories to consume, taking the fruits of your labor (which boils down to your time), Limiting the kind of light you may like to read from, ….

Back to the real discussion. The US goverment has been funding for the last 8 years research on several ESC lines. There has been no been no medical advancements found from this research which can improve the human condition. With no results in eight years it still seems like politics is driving science.

Mar 10, 2009 - 11:11 am 36. Middleman:

Craig,
Funding for cancer research was cut back during the Bush administration. That’s a fact and one that effected them.

Ms. Attitude,
I would argue the achievements and advances made during World War II would actually dwarf many of those in the Industrial Revolution, and with plenty of tax-payer money. Perhaps perpetual war is the answer?
Honestly, I’m not for bloated government, and for government to be the answer man, but I dread the sort of utilitarian society I envision from your point of view where everything is about value on the free market. I suspect it would be a sprawling, drab, and soulless place.

Mar 10, 2009 - 11:11 am 37. Trevor:

There are many better fights the Republicans should be fighting. Even if embryonic research is the most important thing in the world to you … realize the complete failure of the Republicans to gather support of stopping this. Pres. Bush was so obnoxious on this, we in California passed a proposition which borrows $3 billion to fund our own embryonic research. Now we have to pay for both the State and Feds to do this!

It’s so sad. Republicans obliterate their reputation in places like California on irrelevant topics such as this. Yes this is pure politics, and Democrats hit a home run by having this front page news for a week.

Mar 10, 2009 - 11:22 am 38. momof3:

Does Obama hate himself so much that he really feels no child should ever be born again? It seems that way, he literally goes out of his way to attack all unborn children. Embryonic stemcells are unneeded. Anyone who has paid any attention to the science knows that already. I think the pro-choice crowd wants it done, so that there is less room to attack abortion. After all, if that baby some woman just scraped out can extend the life of some parkinson’s-riddled 70 year old, then she’s really a hero, isn’t she?

The left is selfish and self-centered. They believe it’s perfectly ok to end the life of a baby just to prolong the life of someone who’s already had a shot at it. I can not imagine that level of self-importance.

As far as #9 middleman’s post, what a crock. First off, that all prolife people think children should be tried as adults. And second off, that trying one as an adult is somehow as bad as killing a baby. Believing someone has the right to be born does not mean they should never be held accountable for their actions.

Tax money should never, ever be used to fund things that a large percentage of the population has moral and ethical problems with. Not abortion, not embryonic stem cells, nothing. A whole, whole lot less needs to eb funded by the government period.

I am personally against abortion and destroying IVF embryos, so I see no reason to find an excuse to use them. In fact, I’d prefer to do away with IVF period. I’m not catholic, but they got it right on this one. It promotes a consumerist attitude towards kids. Theya re not big macs you can order up to your liking.

Mar 10, 2009 - 11:23 am 39. sodak:

NASA engineering Breakthoughs- TANG and Velcro wow. You don’t think the private sector would come up with it too.

Mar 10, 2009 - 11:24 am 40. Ms. Attitude:

Pete:

I have a college degree from a very liberal college. I guess the liberal take over is failing all of us. I’m proud that you can spend your time debating the use of an apostrophe.

Yes, the advances by NASA and the invention of the internet (by Al Gore) was done with taxpayers money in DEFENSE SPENDING!! NASA is stil part of the Defense Department. Private enterprise took over the internet and made it what it is today.

The Polio Vaccine was funded by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis now known as The March of Dimes, a charitable organization.

Mar 10, 2009 - 11:33 am 41. Ms. Attitude:

Middleman, without the advancements made during the Industrial Revolution those made during the WWII would never have been possible. Look up information on Andrew Carnegie and then tell me how my world would be utilitarian. I believe in helping others but not with my tax dollars. I know that research and development in any industry, especially medical, suffer under the free ride of government funds, including your desire to use stem cells from dead babies!

Mar 10, 2009 - 11:39 am 42. RV:

Trevor – “Does Obama hate himself so much that he really feels no child should ever be born again?”

Are you refering to the hundres and hundreds of embryos that are destined for the garbage can? Or perhaps the hundres and hundreds of embryos just siting in a freezer, who years from now will be destined for a garbage can?

Mar 10, 2009 - 11:47 am 43. Pete:

41 – Ms Attitude. Hey, you never answered the question. Considering IV doctors already throw out embryos that aren’t used in in-vitro procedures, should those doctors be charged with a crime for murder? Should the couple that helped make the embryo be forced to carry all of them to term? Or will private enterprise purchase all of the embryos to implant into other women? I suppose in the event ESC research cures Parkinson’s, it would be your right to not utilize such a treatment and just pray very very hard for divine intervention.

By the way, just when do you feel the Industrial Revolution actually occurred? Again, I think it’s (it is, get it) a pretty flimsy comparison between the industrial advances of the early 19th Century and the war efforts of the mid 20th. This would be like invoking sundials to explain why the atomic clock is so cool.

Mar 10, 2009 - 11:51 am 44. donttreadonme:

Pete,
It certainly is nobody’s business who you wish to bugger..or not.
I agree wholeheartedly. And if you keep a copy of Strunk & White on your nightstand, hey, go for it. I prefer We The Living or The Road to Serfdom, but “to each their own said the liberal who kissed the cow.”

Mar 10, 2009 - 12:03 pm 45. Ms. Attitude:

43 – Pete: you never specified who you were directing your question to since you are going against everyone on this board.

I agree with momof3, she answered your question. And as for your question about Parkinson’s read 13: drjohn, he already answered it. I didn’t make the comparison, your cohort Middleman did.

Maybe you should attend night school to learn how to read! While you’re at it pick up a book and read about the Industrial Revolution, you might learn something.

Mar 10, 2009 - 12:14 pm 46. donttreadonme:

Pete,
I believe you are violating Olbermann’s Law – This law states that no matter how important or serious the debate, the odds of the liberal interlocutor citing something trivial or petty to make a point (like grammar usage, hairstyle, etc) grows exponentially the longer the debate lasts.

Mar 10, 2009 - 12:17 pm 47. Paddy:

When you are amoral as the President is, there is a total disconnect between research and ethics.

Mar 10, 2009 - 12:22 pm 48. Middleman:

Ms. Attitude,
Why are you stuck on the Industrial Revolution? Because corporate welfare wasn’t involved? Nevermind child labor, squalid living conditions, and environmental degredation. Add also the by-products (or waste products) known as anarchism and communism that sprouted up.
When I mentioned a utilitarian society, I think of either early day Chicago where it was about unchecked capitalism, with room for little else. As a result Chicago also became the global epicenter for the Anarchist/Communist movement as well with the Haymarket Riots.
How in the world does research suffer from receiving government funding? Also I resent the idea of that you think I advocate the death of children because of my position. It’s not a child we are talking about, but tissue mass that is either destined to help the living or a garbage can. I would rather it help the living.

Mar 10, 2009 - 12:22 pm 49. donttreadonme:

Pete,
Sorry to pile on, mon ami. But, if you insist on being Devil’s Advocate on this board, you are going to have to get a cool sign off like David S’s “Peace.” Just a tip.

Mar 10, 2009 - 12:27 pm 50. Pete:

Oh, the apostrophe thing is just a pet peeve, although it is HYSTERICAL that Ms. Attitude still thinks that she was using it correctly there. Of course, when can a conservative EVER admit that they’ve been wrong about anything?

Anyhoo, Ms., do you really think that invoking the early 1800’s is really the solution to our current, 21st Century economic woes? Obviously, a smart, edumacated person like yourself would realize that rather large segments of American society at that time were prohibited by law from even holding some of those jobs, let alone vote, own property, marry outside of their race, etc. Of course, back then we also had child labor and primary school education was neither universal nor mandatory.

Now, of course, one could make a pretty decent argument that government spending in the form of the GI Bill helped create/enhance a middle class by sending people to colleges that they otherwise might not have been able to afford. Of course, if the current trickle-down crowd had held sway in the 1950’s, they would have said that the people who used the GI Bill to go to college were “tax looters” or “freeloaders” and would go all John Galt on them.

Mar 10, 2009 - 12:31 pm 51. Pete:

Middle, I think that some conservatives like Ms. Attitude are fixated on times like the Industrial Revolution, because they naturally assume that they wouldn’t be living in undeducated squalor like the vast majority of the population in those days were (sort of like the deluded Rand acolytes who simply assume that they fit her demented definition of just what an “elite” is). Of course, it was easier for the priviliged classes back then to keep and maintain their wealth because the government used the sanction of law to deny large segments of the society a piece of the pie.

Mar 10, 2009 - 12:36 pm 52. Ms. Attitude:

Oh Middleman, do you not realize I was in a debate with Pete. Although he kept trying to turn this forum into a writing lesson I answered his questions.

While attending my very liberal college in Illinois I did an in debth study on the Industrial Revolution and the Gilded Age. A time before our country became a welfare state and Americans new that hard work and smart work could advance them from a nobody immigrant to one of the most powerful people in the world. Yes, it was a great time for unchecked capitalism.

How in the world does research advance through the use of dead babies? Next thing on the Obama agenda: euthanize the elderly because we might be able to use their stem cells for something or other and do it with taxpayers dollars!

Mar 10, 2009 - 12:52 pm 53. Ms. Attitude:

Pete: “Anyhoo, Ms., do you really think that invoking the early 1800’s is really the solution to our current, 21st Century economic woes?”

Early 1800’s? You aren’t the brightest crayon in the box.

Mar 10, 2009 - 12:58 pm 54. Middleman:

Pete,
Ms Attitude and some of these other types believe in Better the Best and F**k the Rest. Problem is that she’s apart of the rest and either doesn’t know it or doesn’t want to admit to it.

It’s an inflated sense of entitlement to be on the road of elitism as means to escape their ordinary middle class existence.

They can talk up Ayn Rand all they want, but it’s funny and I guess a bit ironic how they always seem to have the knack to collectively grind down the position of the individual. Group think me thinks.

Mar 10, 2009 - 1:08 pm 55. Delia:

Maybe nature thins the herd NATURALLY for a reason? How many more “Octomoms” on welfare do we need? If your ‘parts’ don’t work right maybe nature has selected your kin to be unfit for carrying on your genetic material.

Creating life simply to destroy it is about as EVIL as you can get.

I don’t want that blood on MY hands.

Mar 10, 2009 - 1:14 pm 56. Pete:

Ms. Attitude, yes, early 1800’s. Most historians have the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in the EARLY 1800’s, hitting its stride during the Steam Age in the 1850’s. Of course, didn’t the government build the intercontinental railroad?

Mar 10, 2009 - 1:31 pm 57. Middleman:

Delia wrote:
“Maybe nature thins the herd NATURALLY for a reason? How many more “Octomoms” on welfare do we need? If your ‘parts’ don’t work right maybe nature has selected your kin to be unfit for carrying on your genetic material.

Creating life simply to destroy it is about as EVIL as you can get.

I don’t want that blood on MY hands.”

A non-violent Social Darwinist. Nice!
If you’re sick, why bother taking medication if your body is too weak to fight off the infection.

Mar 10, 2009 - 1:36 pm 58. Ms. Attitude:

Pete…God Bless Ya…we’re talking about America not Britain.

It was not until after the Civil War in the 1860s that steam-powered manufacturing overtook water-powered manufacturing, allowing industry to fully spread across the nation.

Besides, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Middleman…the main difference between us is that you like to chant, “yes WE can” while we like to chant, “yes I can”…Group think?

Mar 10, 2009 - 1:39 pm 59. David S:

@55. Delia:

Creating life simply to destroy it is about as EVIL as you can get.

Somehow my religious friends get tripped up when this point arises. I’m glad to see you have no such qualms.

Peace.

DS

Mar 10, 2009 - 1:47 pm 60. Middleman:

Ms Attitude,
Absolute Group think. Many conservatives, especially the blowhards, no of no other way.

I’m not apart of that We you’re trying to box me into. I hold no affiliations and carry no banners.

Perhaps a lot more common folks would say “Yes, I Can” too if some conservatives didn’t talk down on them or send a message of doom, gloom, and why bother. At least Obama and the left act like they care even when in reality they might not. Hope can be a powerful thing. Something the curmudgeons of the Grand OLD Party can’t seem to comprehend.

Mar 10, 2009 - 2:20 pm 61. Delia:

57. Middleman:

“A non-violent Social Darwinist. Nice!
If you’re sick, why bother taking medication if your body is too weak to fight off the infection.”
~

Middleman, that was hilarious.

Non-Violent? Me?

Sorry, Middleman but I think we could have done without the Nazi experiments and still had GOOD, NON-EVIL, life-saving medical science.

Should science always ‘come to the rescue’ if you wait too long to have kids? Is that really smart?

Mar 10, 2009 - 2:25 pm 62. Michael:

There are 2 main issues here. This thread has largely falen into wrestling over the underlying issue. For myself, I would have had little trouble with Obama announcing that, ‘In his view, the main issue here was the potential for scientific advancement and therefore he was directing that there be a change etc.’ He did win the elction and that clearly was his position. It is the strawman degradation of Bush and his position that is in error.

Mar 10, 2009 - 2:40 pm 63. Ms. Attitude:

60. Middleman: “Ms Attitude,
Absolute Group think. Many conservatives, especially the blowhards, no of no other way.

I’m not apart of that We you’re trying to box me into. I hold no affiliations and carry no banners.
Perhaps a lot more common folks would say “Yes, I Can” too if some conservatives didn’t talk down on them or send a message of doom, gloom, and why bother. At least Obama and the left act like they care even when in reality they might not. Hope can be a powerful thing. Something the curmudgeons of the Grand OLD Party can’t seem to comprehend.

I hope Pete doesn’t see your typo in there.

I must let you know that you are wrong about most Conservatives. The yes I can attitude also says to others, “yes you can”. You see, Conservatives love to help those who help themselves. They give more than the Liberals. We just prefer to give and not be told who we are giving to through taxation. The doom and gloom comes from the Liberal Elite who want the rest of to think we can’t do anything without their help, then there are the other Liberals who are always the victim. They work well together. The Victims and the Saviours. The Elite Liberals are followers of Saul Alinsky. The Conservatives find his teachings to be Anti-American Dream. The Liberals teach that America is an evil empire. We see America as the land of opportunity. We think that everyone can succeed the Liberals don’t.

We also believe in the conservation of human life, no matter what stage it is in. Now tell me, which group loves America more?

Mar 10, 2009 - 3:43 pm 64. Pete:

58…oh, I forget, in the world of Pajamas Media, America is literally the only country that exists in the world. Why, everyone else are merely guests allowed to live thanks to a permission slip from Uncle Sam.

The Industrial Revolution started in England in the early 19th Century, and it is patently absurd to have invoked it as an argument AGAINST government funding of scientific research in the 21st Century. Of course, a cursory study of the American railroad age paints a pretty slimy picture of the railroad barons. Hell, the late 19th Century American West wasn’t a utopia of rugged individualism, it was a barbaric and lawless hellhole where the person with the most cash won. The fact that you nimrod Randian GOPers are achingly nostalgic for that time speaks volumes about what’s wrong with your current party’s philosophy.

Mar 10, 2009 - 3:49 pm 65. Pete:

61. Delia, “non-evil”? So, are you saying that IV doctors who throw away embryos are also no better than Hitler? If you work on the premise that any fertilized embryo is a human being entitled to full protection under the law, then IV doctors would be criminals.

Mar 10, 2009 - 3:51 pm 66. Ms. Attitude:

Info on Saul Alinsky from his book Rules for Radicals.

“Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.”

You see how Obama used Alinsky’s teachings to spark radical change towards socialism?

Mar 10, 2009 - 3:54 pm 67. Delia:

65.Pete,

Take a breather. What got your sphincter in such a bad mood? Do you hate your fellow humans who happen to have differing opinions? What has your dander so riled up? *hands you a cookie* Maybe you have low blood-sugar.

Pete, doctors playing ‘GOD’ bothers and disturbs me to my core. HUMAN life should be sacrosanct and there should be great care taken when ‘meddling’ with human DNA/embryos/human genomes. That’s MY opinion and I’m damned capable of having MY own OPINION whether YOUR sorry @ss likes or agrees with my OPINION or NOT.

ADULT self-donor stem cells are already proving far more promising than toying with human embryos. Peter, have you not read ANY of the responses regarding this?

-And, what’s your beef with Ms. Attitude, grand Nazi Wiz? I hardly ever use ‘perfect’ grammar and spelling here…I often make a typo… SO FU*KING what? You think that makes you sit on your pile of superior caca del toro?

Chill out, ‘homey’.

Mar 10, 2009 - 4:33 pm 68. Ms. Attitude:

My point is made by Pete at 64. He resorts to name calling and put downs.

“Rules for Radicals” begins with an unusual tribute: “From all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”

And Obama follows Alinsky’s teachings…

Mar 10, 2009 - 4:35 pm 69. Ms. Attitude:

64. Pete…we are talking about American politics on here and America…where have you been? Your views of our country are messed up. Wake up, it might be too late, our country has been the place that others die to get in to. So many liberals hate America and they are in our universities teaching this hate.

Someone fed you a bunch of bull when they told you that life is fair. It isn’t. There are some who will succeed and others who will fail. It is our own doing, the government doesn’t need to even the playing field.

By having our taxes pay for partial birth abortions, embryonic stem cells, and who knows what else is next…perhaps mass genocide. (Obama’s cousin did it recently!)

This is not what our taxes are meant for! These are murder in the eyes of many people, our government shouldn’t allow it much less pay for it!

Mar 10, 2009 - 4:46 pm 70. Craig:

36. Middleman:

“Craig,
Funding for cancer research was cut back during the Bush administration. That’s a fact and one that effected them.”

You must be getting your facts from Dr. Seuss.
Here are numbers generated for the year 2004
The first year of Bush’s second term and the apex of his 8 year term in office.

Annual cancer funding: $14.4 billion

CONGRESS SETS THE National Cancer Institute’s BUDGET (vis-a-vis, their parent NIH)

So Dr. Seuss…turns out- they gave a 3.3 percent funding raise over 2003

National Cancer Institute
2004 Budget: $4.7 billion

Now for the $9.7 billion
This is the additional amount that’s chipped in
each year from four more federal agencies,
five leading charities, nine major cancer
centers, and the big drug companies.

9.7 broken down:
Total other federal funding
$1.9 billion

Major charities:
$1.0 billion

Cancer centers:
$0.8 billion

Pharmaceutical company R&D:
$6.0 billion

Sources: Totals derive from data for the most recent year available. Other federal
funding includes cancer spending by NIH (except NCI) and the VA (excluding
treatment), CDC, and Pentagon. Data on charities and cancer centers are from
federal tax forms; state figures are not included. Pharma total is from Tufts
Center for the Study of Drug Development and Fortune Inc. estimates.

That’s right STATE FUNDS weren’t included. So that 14.4b can go higher. The next time you roll out the ‘blame Bush’ carnard, I suggest you try it on the demo-bats….they’ll swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Mar 10, 2009 - 5:00 pm 71. donttreadonme:

Middleman, David S, et al,
Please read the following quote from the greatest Democrat in our Nation’s history…
““To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
Thomas Jefferson, 1779
That was the premise of Bush’s Federal funding blockage of embryonic stem cell research. By using the funds of millions of taxpayers who have strong moral and ethical objections to this research, Bush took a very judicious approach.
What if a future president authorized the use of taxpayer funds to promote bathing and basic hygiene…wouldn’t the average neo-lib have a reasonable objection to this?
The defense rests.

Mar 10, 2009 - 5:06 pm 72. donttreadonme:

Olbermann’s Corollary… When the debate inevitably begins to show the vacuousness of the liberal position, the liberal interlocutor will inevitably begin derogatory name-calling. FYI

Mar 10, 2009 - 5:15 pm 73. Delia:

69. Ms. Attitude,

(((Cyber Hugs)))

Sing it, Sista. Don’t quit tellin’ it just because of some Lib punks gamin’ you. Never let the libtards silence your voice with their spastic drivel ad infinitum.

I have compassion for many of the brain-washed masses who have been spoon-fed the Liberal “cradle to the grave” mantra.

1984?

Mar 10, 2009 - 5:20 pm 74. Moogie:

#39, Sodak: NASA didn’t invent velcro. George de Mestral, a Swiss mountaineer and inventor, came up with the idea after taking his dog for a walk among some weeds. Upon seeing the way some burrs were stuck in the dog’s fur and his own socks, he started experimenting and voila! Velcro was born… by a private citizen… in the private sector… without government funding.

Mar 10, 2009 - 5:37 pm 75. Ms. Attitude:

Thanks Delia…

I work with some brainwashed Liberals…very negative people. They hate America and they hate life. I’m not wealthy but I love what this country stands for and the people I know that feel the same way didn’t vote for Obama. I think a lot of people voted for him because the color of his skin and not his issues or past records. Some voted for the first time just for that reason…it’s scarey. The opinion polls are up on him because they keep polling people that are in the dark. I don’t understand how a person with half a brain could’ve voted for him. I’m so outraged as to what is happening to our country. Now the man is allowing the murder of unborn babies in the name of science and he’s using my money that I worked for to do it!!

My state has two Republican Senators and I will write to them about my outrage over this just like I did the Spending Bill.

If conservatives and all of the other Republicans weren’t law abiding, country loving, good people I’d say we should follow the dims and Alinsky’s teachings…but I wouldn’t want to stand in front of God and explain that!

Mar 10, 2009 - 6:01 pm 76. momof3:

“send a message of doom, gloom, and why bother. At least Obama and the left act like they care even when in reality they might not. Hope can be a powerful thing. Something the curmudgeons of the Grand OLD Party can’t seem to comprehend.”

Are you literally insane? What party tells people they can never compete on their merits alone and have to be handed things? What party tells people they can never make it and better to stay on welfare, here we’ll up your check a bit? My family on both sides went from itinerant construction worker (dad’s dad) and subsistence farmer (moms dad) to well to do in 2 generations. How? Working. My dad shoveled hot asphalt summers from age 14 through college, in addition to other jobs. In my generation, every single kid has at least a college degree and either a well paying job or staying home with kids WITH a college degree. My mom picked cotton as a kid, for 12+ hours a day during harvest. I am telling those less successful Yes You Can! You! And if they want to, they can. It’s called work.

I’m 31, that’s scarcely old.

Mar 10, 2009 - 6:47 pm 77. LynnS:

The die has been cast by the elected President and Congress has been given the green light to use federal funds for experimentation that requires the destruction of human embryos. Following will be therapeutic cloning of human life in order to extract human tissue that won’t be rejected by the host.

Life or death of a human embryo is no longer a personal decision between a woman and her doctor or a couple using IVF to bear children. Scientists if asked will admit that it is fresh human eggs that make the best medium for their experiments and there are not enough available. Women will be exploited.

The majority of Americans have voiced their approval of this science and those against it will have to watch what is reaped with this decision. I think that many people will be surprised how it crosses party lines and conservative or liberal leanings. Others will be surprised at how it crosses spiritual belief and even choice and right to life supporters.

We have already seen the signs for years of the attempt to dehumanize these human embryos by lumping them with the generic term of zygote or just bundle of cells destined for some trash can or medical waste dump. We are also supposed believe that this science will be conducted in the most ethical way, when the ethics of it from the very beginning are in question.

For me Monday was a day of mourning.

Mar 10, 2009 - 6:57 pm 78. Middleman:

Ms. Attitude,
Don’t even go treading into accusations that I’m anti-American and you’re more of a patriot. My family has stood to be counted when this country has made the call throughout our history here, and it’s a long history. Even when this country didn’t believe in our kind, we believed in it, so don’t try it. That’s one of the BIGGEST problems with conservatives. You think you have a monopoly on patriotism and if we don’t agree it’s commie commie commie. You couldn’t be more wrong.
Yes, there are liberals who do hate a America, and I don’t have time for them, but there are plenty of conservatives who are false patriots and that is far worse than those who outright hate this nation.
Certainly plenty of people voted for Obama because of skin color. Silly, yes, however I live in Texas and 80% of the people who voted for Bush for president here voted for him because he was the governor of Texas. It’s all a popularity contest, always has been.
So Conservatives are all about the preservation of human life, no matter at what stage? Is that why most conservatives are so pro-death penalty (someone I do support btw) and gung-ho(another thing I support)? At least be honest here.

Mar 10, 2009 - 6:58 pm 79. Middleman:

Moogie,
Well you won the velcro round, but NASA has 3600 other patents waiting for you to refute. Get cracking, tiger.

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

Mar 10, 2009 - 7:01 pm 80. Middleman:

Craig,
That budget growth was spillover from the Clinton administration. Bush made cuts in 2006 and then at least attempted again in 2007.

Mar 10, 2009 - 7:06 pm 81. Middleman:

momof3,
No party tells people to rely on welfare. Show me where you can find a single Democrat in Washington that has made such a remark. I respect your family’s story. That’s great, however there are plenty of people who bust their ass in this country and still can barely make a living wage due to a variety of factors. It’s not all about lazy good-for-nothings.

Mar 10, 2009 - 7:11 pm 82. Paul of Alexandria:

Middleman (78):
“if we don’t agree it’s commie commie commie”
Well, then don’t act like communists! No, we don’t necessarily have a lock on patriotism. However, we’re pretty sure that we have the better approach to life than you do, since conservatism is based on what historically works. That’s the definition of conservatism: if it works, don’t mess with it unless you have a really good reason to.

Mar 10, 2009 - 7:24 pm 83. Paul of Alexandria:

Middleman (78):

So Conservatives are all about the preservation of human life, no matter at what stage? Is that why most conservatives are so pro-death penalty.

You’re talking about two completely different things. The government has been given the power of the sword to punish evildoers. For some crimes, this may include a sentence of death. Unborn children, while perhaps still guilty of orignial sin (for those of you who undertand Christian theology), have not committed any offense against society and deserve no punishment from the temporal authorities.

Mar 10, 2009 - 7:30 pm 84. Paul of Alexandria:

Pete (21):

So, should IV Fertilization be banned then? Numerous embryos are produced and THROWN AWAY in this process.

You’ve hit on the major problem with IV Fertilization. For every child born, several more are murdered.

The fundamental issue is this: do we want to promote the way of thinking that holds a person, a child, as a thing. This path lead to slavery. If you do not accept that one person can own another, that no person should be property to be disposed of as another wishes, then no: you cannot accept IV fertilization as currently practiced, nor abortion, nor embryonic stem cell research. If you do accept these things, than be warned – you may find yourself as property to be disposed of at another’s pleasure.

Mar 10, 2009 - 7:38 pm 85. Moogie:

Middleman: thanks for the link to those busy little NASA bees. Creative bunch of workers, aren’t they?

Just think, 100 years ago people didn’t sit around and debate the morality of creating embryos in a lab, and then freezing them for later experimentation, fertilization, or possible destruction for the sake of science.

Sometimes the fruit from the tree of knowledge is just plain bitter.

Mar 10, 2009 - 7:50 pm 86. Craig:

80. Middleman:

“Craig,
That budget growth was spillover from the Clinton administration. Bush made cuts in 2006 and then at least attempted again in 2007.”

Okay…apparently you failed reading comprehension- CONGRESS sets the NCI(NIH) budget. And they do it ~8 months before it’s signed off by the president. Not 4 years.

Clinton departed Jan of 2001…and he created a spillover? The only spillover he created was with Monica Lewinsky.

Now, getting to your 2006 and 2007 ruse. Once again if Congress sets the budget…both of those budgets were set by a Democrat- controlled House and Senate. Yes Bush can threaten with a veto…but guess what? Bush wouldn’t know a veto from a Danny Devito. And he leaves a legacy of wayward spending that fiscally responsible Democrats can actually throw mud at.

Mar 10, 2009 - 7:53 pm 87. Paul of Alexandria:

Ms. Attitude (41):

…I believe in helping others but not with my tax dollars. I know that research and development in any industry, especially medical, suffer under the free ride of government funds,

Not to get in the middle of another’s argument, but be very careful here. If you look very carefully, Government spending has been behind a very large part of research and development, much industrial innovation, and most large infrastructure projects for the last two thousand years or so. E.g. Rome’s roads, the Autobahn, and the U.S. interstate highway system laid down for military purposes.

There are two kinds of “spinoff” results from government funding: the first is direct funding of research or some large project. For instance, the government might directly fund cancer research. The second is a result of a need which cannot be met otherwise. Examples include night-vision equipment for the Army or advanced turbine engines for military aircraft. Military and NASA projects primarily fit in the latter, although both sponsor direct research.

Re NASA in particular, please see NASA’s Spinoff publication.

Mar 10, 2009 - 8:06 pm 88. Ms. Attitude:

78. Middleman: Gotcha! I wasn’t even talking to you and you took offense to my statements about the difference between Liberals and Conservatives. At first you say you aren’t a Liberal and then you defend what I say about them.

But you don’t ever defend the babies…what’s up with that?

Mar 10, 2009 - 8:12 pm 89. Ms. Attitude:

The Republican party needs to see what we are up against. HRC wrote her thesis on Alinsky and Obama learned his ways from Ayers and others, he started as a Community Organizer using these tactics. If we understand their tactics we can stop them and what they are doing.

http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/8925/alinsky.htm

Mar 10, 2009 - 8:22 pm 90. momof3:

I completely forgot to take on the cloning aspect. Yes, we can all sit around and say how great it’d be if umbilical or adult stem cells could be used to grow a new rejection-proof organ for a sick person. Who wouldn’t want that? The problem is, it’s never that easy and pretty. I for one would rather die than think I was alive because someone else’s life was taken for me. (this is not the same as organ donation, in those cases the person died anyway, whether or not someone gets their organs) and I would not kill an unborn child to save my child either. One is not more important than the other.

I have identical twins. They are literal clones via nature. So I don’t see cloning the way many do. A clone is a person, period. With their own soul, and quirks, and likes and dislikes. Parents could use a dead kid’s DNA to make a new baby, but it will not be the dead kid. It will be another kid who greatly resembles the dead kid physically. Likewise, we can not clone ourselves for spare parts. We’d be murdering another human to get those parts.

A last thought. Nothing is outlawed unless it’s happening. So when Obama says of course there will be laws against cloning, know it’s already being worked on somewhere. Scary. A scientist in love with what he/she can achieve with no thought to whether they should, is Satan’s handmaiden.

And yes, if your genes can’t combine naturally, there’s probably some reason they “shouldn’t” be passed on. Nature doesn’t often make mistakes with what’s best for a species survival as a whole. I can’t imagine how difficult that would be to come to terms with, but people need to do so. Adoption is a wonderful thing.

Mar 10, 2009 - 8:31 pm 91. G Alston:

#52 — While attending my very liberal college in Illinois I did an in debth study on the Industrial Revolution and the Gilded Age.

And apparently you learned nothing. The industrial revolution was ripe for inventions by lone wolf types and in that age these could be done that way. In today’s world the technology is so complex that it requires million$ and can’t realistically be done by the loner. Just to be clear here consider that the typical 3D video game is a multimillion $$ venture.

Comparing the modern technological landscape with the industrial revolution is an exercise in missing the point and does little more than illustrate that you don’t understand the first thing about technology nor the history of invention.

#52 — How in the world does research advance through the use of dead babies?

In the case of IVF this is one of many offshoots of study where one goal is to help guarantee if necessary that future moms won’t endure the heartbreak of brain damaged or deformed kids. A common problem with women bearing kids past 40 may be solvable using this research. IVF and related technologies are a piece of that puzzle.

Mar 10, 2009 - 9:10 pm 92. G Alston:

#39 — NASA engineering Breakthoughs- TANG and Velcro wow. You don’t think the private sector would come up with it too.

The military needed guidance systems for ICBM’s and funneled big bucks into research of semiconductors. NASA was also a part of this effort (otehr requirements.) By the 70’s this was paying off in manyfold ways including the super cheap personal computer you’re using to poke fun at NASA with.

Try reading some history, and if need be, get mom to explain some of it to you.

Mar 10, 2009 - 9:15 pm 93. Bilgeman:

Ms. Clouthier:

Could it just possibly be that the push to se embryonic stem cells is mainly because they’re cheap raw material when compared to the established lines and the umbilical and adult strains?

I suspect that the ESC’s are probably in large part a bunch of bunk.

Yes, it’s a stem cell, it can become pretty much any other kind of cell…that’s swell.
But that cell would have belonged to another human being, and unless you’re pregnant, I don’t think it’s a very good idea to have a separate human being, or even the component parts, growing inside of you.

Mar 10, 2009 - 9:25 pm 94. Jeb:

What has been entirely missed amidst the bickering is that Bush’s executive order did more than what is implied in the article. The ban on federal funds meant that no ESC research outside that on several flawed lines could be done in labs or using any equipment that was funded or partially funded by federal dollars. The effect of this was that most universities and other research had to build new facilities and buy new equipment in order to do this research. This made it prohibitively expensive and stifled the research. That was the goal and that was the effect. To state otherwise is either ignorant or disingenuous.

Adult stem cells and cord blood do not provide fully pluripotent cells. Many of the cells being referred to are more appropriately called progenitor cells. They are already partially specialized and so cannot be triggered to become a cell outside of that partial specialization. We do not have a full array of progenitor cells and progenitor cells cannot answer some of the fundamental questions about true stem cells (ESCs).

A look through the articles and comments gives no compelling answer to the question posed earlier; why is it better to throw left over IVF embryos into the garbage than to allow those cells to be used for potentially life saving research?

Mar 10, 2009 - 11:58 pm 95. Ms. Attitude:

G. Alston…your opinions are not facts. God Bless you.

Mar 11, 2009 - 4:55 am 96. Ms. Attitude:

Jeb: Here’s your answer….Stop IVF …Octoplet mom is the new poster child. Let the people who want babies line up outside of the abortion clinics and stop the killing through abortion and start adopting.

Mar 11, 2009 - 5:00 am 97. TomF:

Jeb (#94). An answer to the question you reiterated.
Maybe the reason there has not been any compelling answer to the question posed earlier concerning “Why it is better to throw left over IVF embryos into the garbage than to allow those cells to be used for potentially life saving research” is because the question is flawed to begin with.

-First, the question is asked in a moral sense, using “better”. It assumes that it is morally superior to use “leftover IVF embryos” for “potentially” life saving research? It admits morality into the question. The morality of pragmatism. If it is the morality of pragmatism, then why bother with rescuing “leftover IVF embryos”. Produce as many as you “need”. Why not, if there is nothing wrong with it? However, if there is some moral necessity to “rescue” the “left over IVF embryos” from the can, then the question should be asked why we have “leftovers” in the first place. The question brings morality into the issue, thus defeating itself.

-Second, the question is also posed as demanding an either/or answer. Much like the lawyer who asks the witness, “Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’, have you stopped beating your wife? ‘Yes’ or ‘no’?” As if I must choose between the fate of the embryo in the trash can or the dissecting table. I choose neither. Even the “life saving research” is posed as an either/or case. I propose we can have life saving research and not compromise our morals. Either way, the Nazi’s “life saving research” was no justification for what they did.

-The second point leads to the third. The question is a secondary question. We need to be asking a more primary question, “Why are there “leftover IVF embryos”?” (I just have to put the phrase in quotation marks, because it is offensive to the sanctity of life.) These secondary questions are often used as a trump card to leave the person answering without an out. I have learned that I do not need to answer the moral the dilemmas of man’s creation. The answer is simple, the whole path is morally bankrupt.

-Another key word is “potentially”. We are so quick to fudge on our morals, for “potentially life saving research”. In the context it might be better to translate “potentially” as “long-shot”.

My example below may not be the direct “yes” and “no” answer you are seeking, but it helps portray some of the reasoning behind those who are opposed to the use of leftover embryos in research. The example from the fast food industry shows why it might be “better” to throw something in the garbage. Often in fast food restaurants, food that has expired is thrown away, even though it is still perfectly edible. Why? Wouldn’t it be better to give it to the employees? In one obvious way, yes. However, the chains are often against the practice for various reasons (lawsuits and image being a couple). But probably the real reason is that, if allowed, it is easy to see that the employees would use this moment to ensure that there are more “leftovers” than necessary. The net result would be an even greater loss for the industry, which they would just pass on to the customer. So, yes, if “leftovers” are allowed to be used, I could foresee an increase in leftover embryos to support this lucrative business of research. As it is, I little trust the ethics of grant-grabbing “scientists” with a political agenda.

Mar 11, 2009 - 5:54 am 98. Middleman:

Ms Attitude,
Don’t pat yourself on the back thinking you caught a liberal in your snare. You caught nothing. As I mentioned, I live in Texas. I know your type very well because they come a dime a dozen around here. Anything not in lockstep with their views are deemed liberal/harmful. Particularly when you use logic and reason. It makes them confused and upset.

I defend the babies alright. Defend the ones living now who have heartless ultra-conservatives snatching lollipops and food from their mouths because they deem the babes to be too lazy because they don’t have a job.

Mar 11, 2009 - 7:15 am 99. momof3:

“A common problem with women bearing kids past 40 may be solvable using this research”

It’s a very easily solvable problem. Have your kids when nature intended, or adopt, or go without. We have enough true medical issues needing research and funding that finding out how to make women fertile longer is an absurd waste of resources. To use it (we might make women be capable of producing kids longer!) as an excuse to justify killing kids is just the stupidest thing I’e ever heard. There’s no other way to express it. Let’s kill babies to make babies!! Yes!

“I defend the babies alright. Defend the ones living now who have heartless ultra-conservatives snatching lollipops and food from their mouths because they deem the babes to be too lazy because they don’t have a job.”

I try not to respond to moronic trolls, but hey. Most of us conservatives don’t consider 30 year olds babies. If you can’t afford your own lollipops by that time, off yourself and improve the gene pool. (obvious -and super rare-cases of true need and inability aside)

Mar 11, 2009 - 7:53 am 100. Jeb:

Ms A and Tom,
There is little to no outcry over IVF and certainly no political will to end the practice. Typically half of the embryos created for IVF are discarded immediately because they are determined to be unsuitable for implantation. Once an implantation takes it is rare for the remaining embryos to be used by the couple who they were created for. Only about 170 embryos have been adopted for implantation over 10 years meanwhile there are nearly 500,000 frozen embryos in the US at last reporting and the number is growing by hundreds daily in the US alone. The vast majority (99%+) of these frozen embryos will almost certainly be discarded. Far more are created in a week in the US than have been adopted over 10 years. There are simply not enough people that want to adopt them. That leaves three options for the remaining embryos: keep them in a -80oC freezer in perpetuity, discard them, use them for research to further our understanding of early development and potentially saving lives.

Why is it that there is this great hue and cry about ESC research, yet IVF discards orders of magnitude greater numbers of embryos and there is virtually no noise and certainly no move to end the practice?

PS – I notice also that the other points I raised (no dual use of facilities and equipment etc) have in no way been addressed.

Mar 11, 2009 - 7:58 am 101. Jeb:

So, yes, if “leftovers” are allowed to be used, I could foresee an increase in leftover embryos to support this lucrative business of research.

I missed this tidbit first time through. It is not currently legal nor is it likely to be to sell these excess embryos. They are kept frozen, destroyed, or donated fro research.

Mar 11, 2009 - 8:02 am 102. Middleman:

Momof3,
My comment about the babies was a joke, but it’s clear that a lot of conservatives are just as good at taking in jokes as a cabal of vegetarian lesbians from Berkeley.

Mar 11, 2009 - 8:16 am 103. G Alston:

#99 — It’s a very easily solvable problem. Have your kids when nature intended, or adopt, or go without.

I’ve noticed that you seem to have difficulty grasping the fact that you don’t get to make the rules that everyone else lives by. The frustration must be awful.

Mar 11, 2009 - 8:28 am 104. Paul -Indiana:

#103. Does that include making other people pay for things of which you approve?

Mar 11, 2009 - 8:49 am 105. G Alston:

#104 — Does that include making other people pay for things of which you approve?

Meaning what, precisely? Are you going to argue that funding NASA if you don’t care much for astrophysics is “wrong” by definition?

Mar 11, 2009 - 9:26 am 106. LynnS:

Suddenly there are so many concerned with what a couple or other do with their “leftover” human embryos, demanding they be used for research with the loftly idea they “may” lead to medical advances.

We were hearing of the concern years ago of discarded human fetuses left over from abortions that they be used for medical research with the loftly idea they “may” lead to medical advances.

Better get a good dentist, knashing of teeth can ruin your chompers.

Creating life for destruction. How wonderful we (well some) get to live by the ones that make ‘that’ law.

Mar 11, 2009 - 10:16 am 107. Self-hating Boomer:

It’s not unscientific to question using human embryos for medical research, as our president suggests. It’s responsible.

In case you hadn’t noticed, “scientific” is newspeak for leftist, and “science” is newspeak for the leftist agenda. “Science” stopped meaning free and open inquiry after Al Gore decided that “consensus of experts” was newspeak for party line.

RIP, science. It was good while it lasted.

Mar 11, 2009 - 10:36 am 108. Matt:

Dr. Clouthier,

You wrote: “Right now, embryonic stem cell research is trendy and edgy. It’s almost taboo…” I think you calls attention to an important aspect of the President’s action.

The EO is an attempt by President Obama and his fellow abortion advocates to obfuscate an issue that he claims is “above his pay grade”. Rather than take a decisive position on when life begins—the crux of the matter—he dodges the issue and simply removes a “taboo” for morally constrained scientists who also happen (for obvious reasons) to be under funded. This legal act will certainly deliver to them the federal and other indirect financing that they desire, but worse, it employs an amoral (if not conscientious sounding) tone which gives tacit moral support not only to this research, but to abortion and IVF. If ‘unwanted’ embryos (or aborted fetuses, etc.) are considered to be of practical scientific value, then more people will start seeing a silver lining in the cloud—produced by a watered-down ethics which devalues and commodifies human life.

Thank you for the oportunity to reply to your essay.

Mar 11, 2009 - 11:13 am 109. Paul of Alexandria:

momof3 (90):

I completely forgot to take on the cloning aspect. Yes, we can all sit around and say how great it’d be if umbilical or adult stem cells could be used to grow a new rejection-proof organ for a sick person. Who wouldn’t want that? The problem is, it’s never that easy and pretty.

Actually, it is. The organs are grown in vitro on a “scaffolding”, either synthetic or taken from a cadaver donor. They don’t grow an entire body and take just the one organ.

See particularly
1st Trachea Transplat fron Stem Cells
and
Doctors grow organs from patients’ own cells

Mar 11, 2009 - 11:22 am 110. Jeb:

Suddenly there are so many concerned with what a couple or other do with their “leftover” human embryos, demanding they be used for research with the loftly idea they “may” lead to medical advances.

You misunderstand completely. The concern is that we have found a use, a potentially life saving use, that can lead to a deeper and better understanding of human development that relies upon what had up to that point been treated as garbage. What was previously treated as garbage with very little outcry from anyone suddenly ignited a firestorm when what was treated as medical waste was treated as a research subject. People who did not care enough to do or say anything about the embryos being disposed of as medical waste suddenly cared enough to block funding of research using those same embryos and stifle that same research. To someone on the outside that looks more like opposition to science than opposition to destroying embryos since focused vocal opposition only began when a scientific use was found.

In case you hadn’t noticed, “scientific” is newspeak for leftist, and “science” is newspeak for the leftist agenda. “Science” stopped meaning free and open inquiry after Al Gore decided that “consensus of experts” was newspeak for party line.

RIP, science. It was good while it lasted.

Obviously you don’t know any scientists.

Mar 11, 2009 - 11:25 am 111. Paul of Alexandria:

Jeb (94):

A look through the articles and comments gives no compelling answer to the question posed earlier; why is it better to throw left over IVF embryos into the garbage than to allow those cells to be used for potentially life saving research?

It’s not better, just less bad. Like using the remnants of abortions, we just desire to not promote a practice that we see as harmful. If we allowed the use of abortion remnants (bodies) than we would soon see women getting pregnent simply to sell the “products”. Allowing the by-products of IVF to be used for research will encourage the creation of embryos simply for experimentation and medical product development.

Given that the country currently allows abortion up to birth, organ-farming isn’t such a far-flung possibility.

Mar 11, 2009 - 11:39 am 112. LynnS:

As law, an embryo created from IVF or within a woman’s body has been turned over the the woman or couple or other who has paid for the treatment or become pregnant with the human life. What they do with that life whether abort or freeze or donate or give birth to is by law their choice. We have not had to use federal funds for abortion or IVF treatment and we are not involved with the decision to freeze, destroy, or donate the embryos.

Do we need an “outcry” meter to think whether something is right or wrong? Saying that people are against something just because someone is for something is disingenuous. I understand perfectly what we are talking about. We are talking about a human life. We are talking about using federal funds to pay for scientific experiments that destroy that human life. I also understand that it will not be enough, there will have to be cloning in order to grow human tissue that is not rejected. I understand that fresh eggs will be needed and they will have to be taken from woman. I understand the procedure is dangerous and young women who are not ready to make that important decision will be coerced into giving. I understand that science and scientists can be as corrupt as anyone else and as greedy as anyone else. I understand that when “may” and “might” are said many hear “will”. I understand that using the words like “a deeper and better understanding” and “therapeutic” are meant to soothe and cajole.

I understand that we will create HUMAN LIFE in order to destroy it.

P.S. We are all going end up not necessarily in a trash can but in the ground, a crypt, a jar on the mantelpiece, or dust on someone’s television set. The trash can argument goes nowhere and is only used to make someone feel better about their decision.

Mar 11, 2009 - 12:16 pm 113. momof3:

“t is not currently legal nor is it likely to be to sell these excess embryos. They are kept frozen, destroyed, or donated fro researc”

Ahh. Just like it’s not legal to sell the sperm and egg to make it? (sarcasm) Oh, and like you can’t sell organs, legal or not? Sure. And plenty of people are against IVF and the embryos it destroys. It’s not a new phenomenon. They aren’t just now deciding they don’t like it cause Obama ok’d research.

id I miss something? The examples #109 listed are about a person’s OWN stem cells (by definition, not embryonic) being used to make organs. Great. Like I said, we’d all love that. But it has jack to do with embryonic research.

Mar 11, 2009 - 1:20 pm 114. G Alston:

#113 — And plenty of people are against IVF and the embryos it destroys.

And keeping things in context, your “plenty” is still a laughably small minority. You’re not in charge, and you won’t be. Ever. Get used to it.

#111 — Allowing the by-products of IVF to be used for research will encourage the creation of embryos simply for experimentation and medical product development.

The ability to do kidney transplants has also resulted in illegal harvesting. On the other hand it’s not widespread and there aren’t wingnuts with “ethical and moral concerns” bombing hospitals and/or shooting transplant surgeons. Your argument is not only breathtakingly wrong, but also is a testament to the lack of ANY valid anti-IVF arguments that don’t include religious belief.

Mar 11, 2009 - 2:08 pm 115. Ms. Attitude:

98. Middleman: Had to work and missed you so much today! Nah, not really! Lets get one thing straight, you don’t a thing about me so don’t make assumptions.

You think it’s okay to use tax dollars for something that a lot of American’s see as murder of the innocent. I don’t get you and just because I don’t it doesn’t make me wrong and you right. How about our government using this money to take care of the children that are born or will be born? We would all support that. The liberals are the ones that want to harm children, so don’t project onto me.

Mar 11, 2009 - 2:15 pm 116. TomF:

The money made off of leftover embryos that I referred to is not necessarily from the sale of any embryos, although that is a possibility. It’s to use these embryos as part of getting big Federal grant money.

Mar 11, 2009 - 2:21 pm 117. Jeb:

We have not had to use federal funds for abortion or IVF treatment and we are not involved with the decision to freeze, destroy, or donate the embryos.

The issue is facilities management. Under the now defunct funding ban joint use of laboratories and equipment was not allowed. If a lab received federal funds to build or renovate a laboratory then no ESC research could use the facility nor could freezers, PCR machines, etc that were bought in part or whole by federal funds be used for that research. This was not simply a ban on direct funding of ESC, it extended well beyond that and had the effect of stifling research in any institution that relied on federal funds for any of its research. New labs had to be built, new equipment bought, etc. This made ESC far more expensive than other research at institutions that received federal grants for other research. This was the intent and this was the effect. You may find that a good thing, but to deny it involves either ignorance or deceit.

Oh, and like you can’t sell organs, legal or not? Sure.

You cannot sell them legally in the US. That prevents their use being covered by insurance or being done in hospitals. Beyond that it is a matter for law enforcement.
Similarly it being illegal to sell embryos means that any institute that would receive government funding would have to show were the donated embryos came from and so would not be using black market embryos. Even institutes that do not receive federal funding are required to show were the embryos came from. Beyond that again it would be a matter for law enforcement. Further, the only reason researchers would pay black market rates for embryos would be scarcity of donated embryos. There is currently a glut of embryos awaiting destruction so scarcity is not an issue and so there is absolutely no motivation to use black market embryos rather than using plentiful donated embryos. The proposition is silly on its face.

And plenty of people are against IVF and the embryos it destroys.

But there was not an active, unified, and vocal opposition until the issue of ESC arose. Some were actively opposed, but that opposition was generally tepid and there was not the groundswell of opposition until a scientific use was found for what was previously treated as medical waste.

To give a hint at the scale of the issue involved for those who propose adoption as a solution, if IVF were ended immediately and adoption of frozen embryos continued at its current rate it would take nearly 30,000 years for all of them to be adopted. That only accounts for IVF embryos currently in cryogenic storage in the US.

Mar 11, 2009 - 2:36 pm 118. LynnS:

#117

The issue is facilities management….blah blah blah

Your trying to divert attention from the issue under discussion, correct?

Separate facilities for research that destroys or conducts experiments on embryos that have been destroyed, and you want to make it a facilities issue.

Abortions at separate clinics, well jeez has that seemed to stifle abortions? Nope, it’s big business.
IV treatments at separate fertility clinics, well jeez has that stifled fertility treatment? Nope. it’s big business.

OK I’m going to deny your “facilities management” theory and I’m going to deny I’m being deceitful or ignorant.

And finally I’m awaiting to hear the news of that long line of human embryos waiting to be destroyed. What…. buckets full, trucks full? Do you have nightmares of being attacked by human embryos piled high coming at you like a tidal wave sweeping away all life in their path. Would you like a list of all the owners of these human embryos so you could plot a google earth map of them, and we would know who all these nasty people are who won’t turn them over to science?

Many owners of these embryos don’t want to give them up for adoption, don’t want to donate them for science, and don’t want to make the decision to destroy them. You see, many who have had children through IVF and understand that they created a human life can’t stomach the thought of destroying them. Do you get their dilemma?

Do you want to make a law to force them to turn over their embryos for science experimentation? As far as I know they are free and have been free to donate them to science.

With Obama giving the green light, and many in Congress salivating to get going, we are headed to a society that creates human life in order to destroy it or use it for body parts. We have been down that road before when humans felt it was necessary to sacrifice human life to appease the gods and live better and longer lives. We found out it was a lie. Now we are doing it to appease some in the scientific community, and the public, who feel it is their due, and that they deserve another’s life for their own whim, or because they say it “might” lead to “potential” treatments.

You should just be honest and admit that you think that there is nothing wrong with destroying human embryos for experimentation and be done with it. Your excuses are lame.

Mar 11, 2009 - 3:49 pm 119. Self-hating Boomer:

Obviously you don’t know any scientists.

Obviously you have reading comprehension problems. Those comments have nothing to do with scientists, and everything to do with political opportunists feigning scientific expertise (*cough Gore cough*).

Most scientists I know know how to read and comprehend.

Mar 11, 2009 - 4:32 pm 120. Mike Blackadder:

This is just a typical Obama policy; completely obtrusive, more harmful than good if not ineffectual, and with the primary goal of scoring political points. Oh, and typical in its Bush contrariness.

Obviously many Americans are opposed to embryonic stem cell research on moral grounds and consciously object to harvesting benefit through the deliberate creation and destruction of human life. It is typical of this administration to act as though they are entitled to taxpayers’ money, and so probably don’t even perceive that there is a problem with compelling these conscientious objectors to participate in a practice that they find morally reprehensible.

Bush did not make embryonic stem cell research illegal in the United States despite any personal feelings from him and his voting base. He only ordered that this area of research does not need to come out of public funds, which was the responsible thing to do, not because of his ideology but due to it being controversial amongst the American people. Obama has no similar restraint and doesn’t mind forcing the ideology of the 53% down the throats of the remaining 47%.

Mar 11, 2009 - 5:54 pm 121. Jeb:

The issue is facilities management….blah blah blah

Your trying to divert attention from the issue under discussion, correct?

No, just pointing out that the issue is not simply removing direct funding for ESC, but driving up the cost of all such research thereby stifling that research. You apparently think that is a good thing.

OK I’m going to deny your “facilities management” theory and I’m going to deny I’m being deceitful or ignorant.

placing yourself firmly in the ignorant camp

And finally I’m awaiting to hear the news of that long line of human embryos waiting to be destroyed.

No, but the prospect of people completely ignorant of the issues deciding policy is nightmarish.

Many owners of these embryos don’t want to give them up for adoption, don’t want to donate them for science, and don’t want to make the decision to destroy them…

and Obama’s reversal of Bush’s policy will in no way change their dilemma.

You should just be honest and admit that you think that there is nothing wrong with destroying human embryos for experimentation and be done with it.

I never denied that was my position. I have ethical issues with creating embryos specifically for destruction or research use, but do not find the destruction of excess blastocysts in any way repugnant.

Obviously you have reading comprehension problems. Those comments have nothing to do with scientists…

That can only be the case if scientists have nothing to do with science.
Non-scientists have had great misconceptions about science and scientists from the beginning and science has not died. That Gore and his ideological opponents have misunderstandings about science can be an impediment to research but despite this science will continue to advance.
BTW Gore, while he and his movie are far from scientifically rigorous, is closer to correct on this scientific issue than most of his ideological opponents.

Mar 11, 2009 - 6:33 pm 122. Paul of Alexandria:

momof3 (113):

id I miss something? The examples #109 listed are about a person’s OWN stem cells (by definition, not embryonic) being used to make organs. Great. Like I said, we’d all love that. But it has jack to do with embryonic research.

So? I was answering a specific question: no, you don’t have to create an entire cloned body in order to get an organ from it. Consider also that the use of adult stem cells (which may, FYI, come from infants, e.g. umbilical cord blood) has proven and demonstrated applications; embryonic research is not, truly, necessary – especially given the moral issues.

Mar 11, 2009 - 9:18 pm 123. Paul of Alexandria:

G Alston (114):

#111 — “Allowing the by-products of IVF to be used for research will encourage the creation of embryos simply for experimentation and medical product development.”

The ability to do kidney transplants has also resulted in illegal harvesting. On the other hand it’s not widespread and there aren’t wingnuts with “ethical and moral concerns” bombing hospitals and/or shooting transplant surgeons. Your argument is not only breathtakingly wrong, but also is a testament to the lack of ANY valid anti-IVF arguments that don’t include religious belief.

non-sequitor. Why would an activist bomb a hospital because of an illegal action taken by somebody not associated with it? Unless, of course, the hospital has an organ-legging operation going on the side.

Of course the anti-IVF arguments “include religious belief”. An important component of religious practice is morality – those personal practices which enable society to exist. Is “You shall not murder” any less valid because it was once stated in a religious context?

The whole argument boils down to this: do you want to allow the deliberate creation of human beings who will, in turn, only be viewed as things to be disposed of at will? It’s a very small step from this to slavery, euthenasia, and genocide. I suggest reading the “Miles Vorkosigan” books by Lois McMaster Bujold for further thoughts on where this can lead.

Mar 11, 2009 - 9:33 pm 124. momof3:

OK Paul, we agree, sorry. No need to destroy embryos (babies) for research. That organ thing is cool, and is exactly the sort of thing people who argue for embryonic research are thinking about when they talk of leaps forward. They need to realize it’s not needed.

Jeb, I not only have an issue with the fact that people want to use that 30,000 years worth of embryos for research, I have issue with the fact they exist at all. Why are so many made? Why do drs regularly make 30 or 40, to implant a few? I understand the science, I have a degree in genetics. I understand they are trying for the “best” baby, and that genetic issues are startlingly high in these forced-combination babies. That should give them a clue that this is not meant to be. Creating dozens to get one that passes muster is sickening.

I know a lot of women who underwent fertility, being a mom of twins we stick together and fertility makes lots of twins. Many of these women underwent abortions when younger, because a kid ‘wasn’t convenient” then. Then when they decided it was convenient, and nature didn’t agree, they spent tens of thousands getting a kid. It’s like they start to see them like the mercedes SUV and big house-just what you do as you get older. The kid of course then goes to daycare or gets a nanny. I’m not saying this is all fertility beneficiaries, but many. And it’s an attitude that couldn’t possibly be more wrong.

I don’t get to run other’s lives, but neither do they get to run mine. And taking my money for this is unacceptable coersion against my morals. Much like G alston would argue making a woman carry a child to term would be an unacceptable coersion to her. Either say the majority gets to rule (which means-guess what, we’ve already ruled on gays and they don’t get to marry!) or agree that the majority must think of the rights of the minority. You don’t get whichever way works for your current argument.

Mar 12, 2009 - 7:17 am 125. LynnS:

#121
“I have ethical issues with creating embryos specifically for destruction or research use”

And I’m ignorant? The only path for this research to take is creating human life and destroy it for experimentation or keep it alive for body parts or you could use the word “organ tissue” if that would make you feel better.

“but do not find the destruction of excess blastocysts in any way repugnant”

Here we go again with the dehumanizing of a stage in human development. Where in our history have we seen the first steps to committing atrocities was the dehumanizing of another. It is YOUR thoughts and excuses that are truly nightmarish.

Who do you want deciding the fate of these embryos. The President? Well he did, and you won, now fill yourself up with what will be the results.

I watched your former President Clinton interview with the “expert” medical doctor Sanjay Goupta. President Clinton said that we should not use the embryo’s for science if there is the slightest chance they could be “Fertilized” and result in the birth of a human being. The “expert” did not correct him by saying that an EMBRYO is fertilized. Gupta did not even blink. Your putting your faith in these kinds of people who don’t even know that the simplest science facts about human reproduction.

You only think that Obama is scientifically sophisticated because he agrees with you and that science should be unfettered from ethical questions. Another words “Just Do It”.

I think what I find most disturbing about you is your willingness to decide the fate of another human life yet attempt to explain you decision by dismissing what makes it “human”, which is what is the most valuable thing about it. You take the miracle of life and turn it into something that you think can be useful. You speak of human life as if it’s only merit is it’s usefulness. That is repugnant.

Mar 12, 2009 - 7:45 am 126. Jeb:

I have issue with the fact they exist at all.

The thing is, they do exist and we cannot undo that. We are now left with the options: keep them at -80oC (~$100/yr) in perpetuity, throw them away, or use them. Some of them can be adopted, but that still leaves the vast majority. Currently most are eventually thrown away. I see research as far preferable to throwing them away or keeping them frozen in perpetuity. Which do you prefer. Keep in mind we are talking about collections of 70-100 cells not sentient beings.

Why do drs regularly make 30 or 40, to implant a few?

They usually make batches of 7 now. Of those generally about half are unlikely to successfully implant and so are discarded immediately. What is left allows for one or two shots at implantation. Opting for creating more allows for more chances at implantation and since the procedure is rather expensive, some choose this option. In any case, about half of the embryos created for IVF will not be used and are currently immediately discarded. It has been shown that these pre blastocyst discards can be used to create ESC lines, but the success rate is rather low. Given that IVF will continue and its continuation means that these embryos will be created and will not be implanted, what do you propose we do with them?

Many of these women underwent abortions when younger, because a kid ‘wasn’t convenient” then…I’m not saying this is all fertility beneficiaries, but many.

Could you define many and give some idea of the sample size you are talking about?

And taking my money for this is unacceptable coersion against my morals.

Is that true of any government expenditure you or I happen to disagree with? Because I happen to have disagreed with the war in Iraq, does that mean that my tax dollars was unacceptable coersion against my morals? The majority must protect the rights of minorities, but that does not mean that if a minority finds a specific government program that does not remove their constitutionally guaranteed rights objectionable or even repugnant that the government must end that program. In the example of the Iraq war, I found the invasion to be objectionable on both moral and political grounds, but it did not remove any of my constitutionally guaranteed rights even though my tax dollars supported it. People who find the death penalty repugnant are in a similar bind. This is not a whichever way works situation; they are fundamentally different. In one case a minority group is being singled out and actively denied the rights guaranteed the majority and in the other tax dollars are being used to fund a program that a minority disagrees with. If we propose to treat the two issues the same then interracial marriage would likely still be illegal in some parts of the country, poll taxes could be allowed, etc or government would be unable to perform any function at all as some minority objects to everything it does.

Mar 12, 2009 - 8:13 am 127. Pee Wee Herman, Community Organizer:

‘Jeb’ seems to be making the same argument that Douglas McAurthur was making – that (Wyle E. Coyote) geniuses shouldn’t be bothered by mere mortals. Unfortunately Teleprompter Jesus is no Truman, and will let his type have as much cake as they want.

Mar 12, 2009 - 9:27 am 128. LynnS:

Here’s the facts:

The American public has no say over who goes through IVF treatments and no say over what happens with the human embryos that are created, implanted, destroyed, or stored. The couple or other and medical personnel who created these human embryos decide what the procedure will be, who will pay for it, and what will be done with the human embryos.

#126 is talking as if the public has a say with what is done when in reality the public is being asked to accept federal research dollars to pay for research that destroys these embryos for experimentation or experiments on them after they have been destroyed and stem cell extracted.

#125 is being disingenuous trying to relate it to war or the death penalty. Yet without intending, he is perfectly illustrating the serious of the issue and our absolute duty to question this research that destroys a human life. There is absolutely no question that it will lead to further need to create human life for the purpose of experimentation. That is why Obama left “therapeutic cloning” on the table. That is the only direction this research can go.

Mar 12, 2009 - 9:50 am 129. Jeb:

The only path for this research to take is creating human life and destroy

The embryos have already been created. The debate, such as it is, is what is to become of them. Do you have a real answer for this?

Here we go again with the dehumanizing of a stage in human development.

No, just precision in terminology.

Who do you want deciding the fate of these embryos.

The people who created them.

President Clinton said that we should not use the embryo’s for science if there is the slightest chance they could be “Fertilized”…

If that is an accurate account of what he said it is indeed ignorant, but I do not look to Clinton for scientific or moral advice.

…and result in the birth of a human being.

I would guess that this was the thrust of his comment and Gupta’s response. I do not support reproductive cloning for a variety of reasons, not the least of which are the results of reproductive cloning in other animals.

You only think that Obama is scientifically sophisticated because he agrees with you and that science should be unfettered from ethical questions.

Obama does appear more scientifically sophisticated than our prior president and certainly more curious and more likely to listen to his scientific advisers. All good things IMO.
Science is not and should not be unfettered from ethical questions. We are in firm disagreement on what those strictures should be not on the necessity of strictures to claim otherwise is at best disingenuous. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand this point. I do not agree with your assessment of where personhood begins and that is the root of our disagreement here and it is not likely one that will change. I do not believe that personhood begins at conception, nor do I believe it has been achieved by an embryo. There is no mind, there is no sentience, and as such there are no creations of sentience such as the ideas of a soul or spirit. I do not share your belief in these things supernatural and so my ethics are not based upon them. That does not mean that I have no ethics nor does it mean that there is not considerable overlap in our shared ethics as some would like to imply.

The American public has no say over who goes through IVF treatments and no say over what happens with the human embryos that are created, implanted, destroyed, or stored. The couple or other and medical personnel who created these human embryos decide what the procedure will be, who will pay for it, and what will be done with the human embryos.

Policies of the federal government can make options more or less attractive. Policy, until very recently, made the option of donation much less likely by making the associated research much more expensive than it need be. That policy has now been changed and the resulting calculus has changed. Donation for research is now a more viable option than it was before.

#125 is being disingenuous trying to relate it to war or the death penalty.

No. I was merely pointing out that the government can pursue policies that I disagree with without being an “unacceptable coersion against my morals.” I actively disagree with those policies and seek to have them changed by personal activism and voting for people whose positions I most closely align with. It is certainly your duty as a citizen to do the same and to be an active part of the debate, but government funding of programs that either you or I disagree with does not constitute coercion against either of our morals, unacceptable or otherwise.

There is absolutely no question that it will lead to further need to create human life for the purpose of experimentation.

Quite the contrary; there are currently more than enough embryos for any foreseeable research needs and more are being created daily by IVF clinics. There is absolutely no need for any sort of farming and farming itself is illegal.

Mar 12, 2009 - 12:12 pm 130. LynnS:

I have no sure answer for what these people should do with their human embryos. Offer them for adoption to other couples that cannot produce viable human embryos would probably be the best alternative, although the thought of their child with another family might be hard, it would at least be a choice of life.

If you want to use ‘precise’ terminology than preface every word you use to describe the different stages of human development with the word “Human”, at least give them that dignity to differentiate them with the very same words that are used in the development of all other mammals, mice, cats, dogs, cow, sheep, etc.

I have never heard or read of people not donating their embryos because the government did not make it attractive.

You were being disingenuous relating this research to war or the death penalty. Both of those examples go through a very long process of vetting, and the voters can lobby their representatives to vote for or against war. War is not popular and parents don’t want their children sent to war to die. The American military does not go into war with the intent of harming innocent life.

Voter’s representatives can also lobby for someone on death row to be pardoned or their case reexamined. Lawyers and prisoner advocates are constantly fighting to help the prisoner gain their life. Even some relatives of the victims of these prisoners on death row forgive them and lobby they be kept alive. Each and every case is presented to the governor of that particular state.

Lastly the future of this research has to go down the path of creating clones so that tissue matching with the host is viable. In order to do this human embryos that match the host will have to be created then destroyed for experimentation or grown for body parts. You can’t escape that knowledge and as I said before that is exactly the reason Obama left therapeutic cloning on the table.

Mar 12, 2009 - 1:57 pm 131. TomF:

I am not making any suggestions for a course of action, but only a possible point of discussion. What to do with the “leftover embryos” apart from adoption? Bury them with dignity, and say a prayer over them asking God’s forgiveness for sins both intentional and unintentional committed out of ignorance.

Mar 12, 2009 - 2:11 pm 132. momof3:

“I do not believe that personhood begins at conception, nor do I believe it has been achieved by an embryo. There is no mind, there is no sentience, and as such there are no creations of sentience such as the ideas of a soul or spirit.”

Souls aside, if you’re not religious. At the moment of fertilization, you are you. Your genes are all there. Your preference for salty snacks instead of sweet, your innate musical ability, your slow metabolism that means you won’t be able to eat as much as others without gaining weight, your capacity for intelligence, it’s all there. The map of your brain-every neural connection-is there. If you don’t believe a soul exists, and you don’t think your genes make you “you”, then what do you believe? And when does it happen? When the brain is formed? Brains develop into the early 20’s, so that’s a long time to wait to be a person. When you are sentient/aware of yourself as a being? That’s well over a year past birth. When you can breathe on your own? That can be as early as 23 weeks gestation. So when do people become people? What’s your marker, that prior to they are open for experimentation? Is it an IQ level? Is it ok to experiment on the mentally challenged? After all, they don’t do anything for society and we might learn great things from such experiments!

A fundamental disagreement we have, among the many, is I don’t think there is a “less bad” thing to do with the stored babies. Nor do I think more should be made.

Mar 12, 2009 - 2:11 pm 133. LynnS:

#131
“bury them with dignity, and say a prayer over them asking God’s forgiveness for sins both intentional and unintentional committed out of ignorance.”

My mom said that to me once about the little ones aborted and giving them a dignified burial. I remember thinking it was such a wise thing to say. I hope your blessed.

Mar 12, 2009 - 4:38 pm 134. Jeb:

I have no sure answer for what these people should do with their human embryos. Offer them for adoption to other couples that cannot produce viable human embryos would probably be the best alternative, although the thought of their child with another family might be hard, it would at least be a choice of life.

There are orders of magnitude too many embryos for that to be a viable option for the vast majority. It is and has been an option for some time now and the rate of adoption relative to the rate of creation is so low as to amount to nothing greater than background noise (many more are created in a given week than have been adopted over 10 years). Even given the more open rules for funding ESC research, the number of embryos created for IVF and disposed of as medical waste will dwarf the number used for research. As long as IVF remains legal the supply will far outstrip the demand. If your primary concern is the fate of the embryos that you believe to be full persons then ESC is pretty far down the list of threats.

I have never heard or read of people not donating their embryos because the government did not make it attractive.

The government policy artificially inflated the cost of the research making most donations pointless.

You were being disingenuous relating this research to war or the death penalty. Both of those examples go through a very long process of vetting, and the voters can lobby their representatives to vote for or against war.

Stem cell research has also gone through a long vetting process and we are all free to lobby our representatives to shape the law regarding this research. Your position has held sway for most of the past 8 years, mine for several days. It is your turn to lobby your representatives.

Lastly the future of this research has to go down the path of creating clones so that tissue matching with the host is viable. In order to do this human embryos that match the host will have to be created

Embryos created via somatic cell nuclear transfer have not yet resulted in any viable human stem cell lines. Eventually stem cells matching donor DNA should be able to be created and those cells signaled to specialize into the cell type needed for the specific treatment. The signaling would have to occur quite early in development (prior to natural signaling for differentiation) to be effective.

At the moment of fertilization, you are you.

At the moment of fertilization the scope of who you may be is limited, not determined.

The map of your brain-every neural connection-is there.

Not really. That is a nice analogy, but DNA is not a blueprint or a road map. The instructions necessary to form those connections is there, but the connections are far from fully predetermined by genetics.

If you don’t believe a soul exists, and you don’t think your genes make you “you”, then what do you believe?

Honestly I don’t know. Development occurs along a continuum and there is a large gray area where I am uncertain. At this point my best guess at where I would place the beginning of personhood is somewhere between 8 and 26 weeks. I am confident, however, that it does not begin in an undifferentiated lump of cells. Here we disagree and no agreement is likely to ensue.

A fundamental disagreement we have, among the many, is I don’t think there is a “less bad” thing to do with the stored babies. Nor do I think more should be made.

The embryos are there nonetheless and more are being created daily and something will be done with them. For the vast majority of them adoption is not an option, which means that something else must be done with the rest. If you can find no ‘least bad’ option then you freeze yourself out of the debate over what should be done. In light of that what do you propose we do with the half a million or so embryos already extant in cryogenic storage in the US?
Another disagreement would be our definitions of baby.

Mar 12, 2009 - 5:08 pm 135. LynnS:

In light of that what do you propose we do with the half a million or so embryos already extant in cryogenic storage in the US?

For now it’s really up to the couples isn’t it not up to you or me. But since you asked…..
Leave them alone for now, except to be offered for adoption. There have been cases of pregnancies resulting with human embryos that have been frozen for nine years. Finally get some sanity and sensible laws and regulations that deal with couples who need fertility treatment to conceive and still allow for the dignity of human life.

Other countries have managed to make strict laws with how many embryos are created and restricts their use. I don’t see why our lawmakers have allowed this to go on so long to the point where people are clamoring to use these human embryos for research that destroys them as if they should have that right.

Some research done has shown that a majority of couples would seriously consider donating them to science even more than donating them for adoption. I found that so odd. Some said they would even consider destroying rather than adoption. This study was on a few thousand with a little over a thousand responding which shows that most don’t want to deal with it at all. Storage seems to cost approximately 300 dollars a year and some couples wanted to keep them stored for the future.

What is definitely needed are laws to address this issue and stop the creation of human life destined to never reach the full stage of their growth, a terrible grave tragedy. Obviously the couples are not thinking clearly as they will admit themselves and the doctors are not monitoring their behavior so of course in the end it is up to someone else to inject some sanity in the situation.

These laws seem sense and are sympathetic to the woman who can’t bear children through other means and also give dignity to the created human life.

Germany: No more than three eggs can be collected from a patient for in vitro fertilization. All embryos created must be transferred to the patient.

Italy: Law passed in 2004 prohibits destruction of embryos. All embryos created during in vitro fertilization (to a legal maximum of three) must be transferred to the woman’s womb.

It is a travesty that this has gone on so long in our country, I really feel ashamed that it has reached this point where we are discussing the fate of another human life as if it were a commodity.

Mar 12, 2009 - 7:42 pm 136. momof3:

So what changes between 8 and 26 weeks? What is added? You don’t believe a soul flies down, and nothing is there that wasn’t there at fertilization. Is it that it starts to look human? I’m truly interested to know.

Are those who are born phenotypical outliers from the norm of human physiology not human to you? Those with no arms or legs? They don’t look like a person “should” .

If it’s not the baby’s looking more like a developed human, and it’s not a soul, and nothing else has changed between fertilization and viability, then what? Are the babies born before 26 weeks not human to you? I attend playdates with several children who were born that early. I assure you they are people and were at birth.

Life experiences will add neural connections, yes, but those needed to live are “mapped” already in your genes. And the possibility of every other connection you could make is there as well. My brain would never make the connections necessary to be a concert pianist-the ability is not within me. Just like the ability to learn anything. You can have the inborn ability, but never be taught. You can have lesser inborn ability, and no amount of teaching will overcome that. All genetic. All there from the start.

Mar 12, 2009 - 8:12 pm 137. Jeb:

Lynn,
I can sympathize with your position though I have come to different conclusions.

Mo3

So what changes between 8 and 26 weeks? What is added?

The cerebrum and consciousness develop. It is a process of degrees from this beginning and at some point a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind. I am not sure where/when that is.

All genetic

and cytoplasmic, and environmental.

Mar 12, 2009 - 10:47 pm 138. momof3:

I have to shoot some crap at the environmental factor. I had ID twin girls. Same (virtually) genetics, identical environment, yet they couldn’t be more different. I’m not saying environment doesn’t factor in, it obviously does, see single mothers for one example. But there is obviously something there beyond genetics and environment making people people. I say soul.

Mar 13, 2009 - 6:21 am 139. LynnS:

#137
“I can sympathize with your position though I have come to different conclusions.”

Sympathize? as in understand, feel my pain, share in my grief?

Bu!!shit, you don’t see the harm that couples created human life because all they could think was I want a baby….I want a baby….I want a baby….to hell with the consequences and you see the medical-science field as practicing ethical, well thought out procedures creating human life that has a slim to none chance of reaching it’s destination and claim it is only a different conclusion? Then claim you have a right to pick their destination as destruction and put them in the hands of people and scientists who practiced unethical procedures in the first place.

Bu!!shit. Keep your sympathy along with your conclusions and your win with your president and celebrate your victory and think of me no more. I feel no sympathy toward you and I find your conclusions as appalling as this whole debacle.

Mar 13, 2009 - 6:22 am 140. Jeb:

But there is obviously something there beyond genetics and environment making people people.

Their environments in the womb and beyond were (and continue to be) more different than their genetics and there were different cytoplasmic factors. It is certainly your prerogative to believe those differences are caused by different souls, but I don’t share in that belief.

Sympathize? as in understand, feel my pain, share in my grief?

More understand than feel your pain. If you cannot disagree without becoming disagreeable that is on you and I guess our conversation is at an end.

Mar 13, 2009 - 9:03 am 141. LynnS:

#140
Yes at times life is disagreeable and people act disagreeably for good reason, and yes our conversation is at an end. Continue being polite and agreeable while you plot and plan the destruction of human life.

Mar 13, 2009 - 9:18 am 142. momof3:

“Their environments in the womb and beyond were (and continue to be) more different than their genetics and there were different cytoplasmic factors”

Well since you think you know so much, do tell how 2 embryos from the same sperm/egg in the SAME AMNIOTIC SACK sharing a placenta and blood flow, sucking each other’s toes and fingers, had a different womb environment? That’s impressive. I was sort of under the impression that any substance in a liquid would soon be equally dispersed through said liquid. They even drank each other’s pee, since that’s a large part of amniotic fluid. I suppose the fact that one slept a little closer to the bars of their crib (again, shared) explains why one is so smart-alecky and one is shy? One thinks she can live on air and one loves to eat? yes yes. No doubt.

The fact that they split so late (around day 15 after fertilization) means the cellular differences are minute as well, far smaller than even most ID twins.

Mar 16, 2009 - 7:38 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: