posted
Mr. Card, you strongly support president Bush on many matters. What's your take on the proposed stem cell research bill veto? The issues you support are more or less arguable but I can usually see how one can agree with you, and sometimes I do myself. I hope you oppose the proposed veto (if it is at all possible for a religious person, I am the walrus here) because it is inconceivable to me how a rational man can suggest such a veto. It would be really interesting to know your opinion.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can make a case, probably a good case for such a veto. I don't think you can rationally argue for this being the ONLY veto in an 8-year term.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why? There's been a remarkably pliant congress of his own party for the 5 and a half years he's been in office.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had tried to pretend, honestly. The only argument I could come up with was that it might be dangerous to implement the stem cell technology into health care because of unknown side effects. Only this is ridiculous: any new technique is dangerous and requires study and experiment, and this one by far is not the most dangerous one. Besides, there are other application than health care. There is nothing else I can think of.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Try using the more precise title - embryonic stem cells - and see if anything springs to mind.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I am not familiar enough with the subtleties of the subject. However, the only viable objection that I can see would be, if one has to initiate an embryo specifically for harvesting the cells. If this is the case (which I doubt), I can see why some people may object. I don't though.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then let's try this: can you imagine why anybody would have problems with using the bodies of murder victims for medical experimentation?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aside for the moral questions, how about this...
Adult stem cells have been used to successfully treat hundreds of patients. There's at least one case of a person who had severe Parkinson's who is now virtually symptom free.
Embryonic stem cells have not once successfully treated anyone or any disease. Ever.
That's not to say that it isn't possible, but given the choice of spending billions of dollars on a treatment that has proven effectiveness and can cure people now, versus one for which the technology to even test potential uses hasn't been invented yet, the choice is incredibly clear.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Can you tell us where you found that?--I'm not doubting you, I just would like to read more about the statistics.
Posts: 31 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Then let's try this: can you imagine why anybody would have problems with using the bodies of murder victims for medical experimentation?
If we are still talking about a rational person, then no. Why would you mix murder with using a body?
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because Crocobar most of the people that oppose abortion feel that is the murder of an innocent human being, one that is incapable of defending himself.
When using aborted fetuses, people will feel like that the aborted fetus is a murder victim. And taking stem cells from said aborted fetus will seem as though you are conducting medical experiments on a murder victim.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, it is slightly less horrible than when German-Dictator-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners.
But I will acknowledge that I am undereducated about the process, and that my view is considered extreme. I don't think I'm irrational, though. (I do have some irrational issues ... I know the difference.)
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But embryonic stem cells don't come from aborted feti (fetuses, whatever). I don't know if I'm recalling correctly that there was discussion of successfully treating Parkinsons with tissue from aborted fetuses a few years ago.
No, the stem cells would come from embryos created solely for harvest. While this means they are never more than a few clumps of cells, it does seem wrong to use something potentially part of our species like a beef.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure OSC had a review once where he mentioned the many successes of work with adult stem cells and the lack of promise from work on the permitted lines of embryonic stem cells. There are several dozen embryonic stem cell lines available, but the researchers believe that somehow, if they had an unlimited supply of stem cell lines, their chances of success would be greater. I do not understand or sympathize with this belief. It seems somewhat fanciful.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Although I agree with Brownback's position, I do wish he has given footnote reference somewhere to source of his facts cited.
FG (that link is not to what he actually said on the Senate floor - that is a link to his press release on the matter. But he did make public statements to that effect, as well)
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Then let's try this: can you imagine why anybody would have problems with using the bodies of murder victims for medical experimentation?
If we are still talking about a rational person, then no.
Such a lack of imagination.
quote:Why would you mix murder with using a body?
I have no idea what this means.
Let's try it again: can you imagine any problems that could arrise if we used all the the bodies of executed felons as organ donors?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
The veto is NOT about legalizing stem cell research or anything else that the media is hyping up. The veto is about federally funding it. This is more about the role of government funding medical research. Even if this bill doesn't pass, California and several other states are planning on funding the research, as are many private businesses.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I once did a project on a Parkinson's paper using embryonic stem cells that had very promising results. Unfortunately, the website is no longer up and it has been 5 computers since I did that, so no reference. sorry, too lazy for a pubmed search right now. The problem with the comparison over the murdered body- you have to include that the murdered victim's family has signed him over to medical research and that the current plans for disposal included nothing respectful (incineration followed by dumping). Also, for ethical reasons, fertility clinics are the preferred source. Creating embryos still too much work to make it worth it. pooka- in order to make immortalized stem cells, you have to screw with them (primary cell lines would avoid this). Then add in contamination which is difficult to avoid. Then, look at aging. Every time you passage cells (embryonic or normal), they change. That's why when you do a cell experiment you want to keep passage numbers the same throughout. You can only get a certain number of cells for any given passsage. So, you harvest your stem cells and then immortalize them and make passage one. You get, let's say ten tubes at passage one. That is all you will ever have at that passage number. If each tube of P1 can create ten tubes worth of P2, the most at P2 you will ever have is 100 (and you now have none of P1 left). You start distributing your cells around the world, these are gone fast. Scientists would like to use the early passages because they are going to be the most like the original cells, but these are gone. So, scientists are forced to use cells which by nature are not ideal for their experiments. So, they don't count using an inability to make something work when using faulty tools as a failure.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:you have to include that the murdered victim's family has signed him over to medical research
Well, that's very generous of them after they had the person murdered/removed from life support for what were likely financial reasons.
P.S. I did not know that about the cell line purity, but I'm not sure how making a wider diversity of cells available addresses that.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:it is inconceivable to me how a rational man can suggest such a veto
Let's try a different angle:
Can you imagine any reason why a rational man would suggest vetoing a bill which spends public money on something which a large segment of the population is (rationally or irrationally -- it doesn't matter) against?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: Because Crocobar most of the people that oppose abortion feel that is the murder of an innocent human being, one that is incapable of defending himself.
When using aborted fetuses, people will feel like that the aborted fetus is a murder victim. And taking stem cells from said aborted fetus will seem as though you are conducting medical experiments on a murder victim.
I have understood the point of comparison perfectly well. It is just that I do not see a connection between a murder and a usage of a body of a victim for an experiment. The experiment does not promote or justify murder in any way.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kent: YOU GUYS ARE DRIVING ME NUTS!
The veto is NOT about legalizing stem cell research or anything else that the media is hyping up. The veto is about federally funding it. This is more about the role of government funding medical research. Even if this bill doesn't pass, California and several other states are planning on funding the research, as are many private businesses.
I admit that I do not know the details of this veto. That was not the point though, rather a spark that initiated a discussion. However, I doubt you would deny that it is not a lack of federal funds that prompts mr. president to suggest a veto on such a subject. Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Such a lack of imagination.
_Rational_ was the word. I can imagine plenty of emotions on such a subject of course.
quote:I have no idea what this means.
I meant to say that using a body of a murder victim does not justify the murder itself in any shape or from.
quote: Let's try it again: can you imagine any problems that could arrise if we used all the the bodies of executed felons as organ donors?
If there are no expressed wishes of the executed or whoever has power of attorney for them, I do not see a problem in using the organs. That is not to say that this is allowed under current law, I do not know what the law says on the subject.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:it is inconceivable to me how a rational man can suggest such a veto
Let's try a different angle:
Can you imagine any reason why a rational man would suggest vetoing a bill which spends public money on something which a large segment of the population is (rationally or irrationally -- it doesn't matter) against?
I'll make the point of my question more clear: I do not care about financing the research, only about forbidding it. I only used the veto to make an emotionally stronger beginning statement, and it is misleading. So, forget about the veto and the money.
On a seconf thought, I'd like to answer this as well. In my understanding, this is a difference between a pure democracy and a constitutional republic (that we live in, right?) The point of having a president is that he can make an unpopular judgement call. If any wish of the majority was satisfied as you imply, you may find yourself executed just because the majority didn't like you based, say, on your religious belief. That's why the word "democracy" should not fly around as much as it does these days.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not care about financing the research, only about forbidding it.
If that's true, I have no idea what your problem is. Stem cell research is perfectly legal in the US. All Bush is trying to stop with his vetoe is financing the research with federal money.
quote:If there are no expressed wishes of the executed or whoever has power of attorney for them, I do not see a problem in using the organs.
Can you imagine us executing more and more people because of the great benefits "law-abiding" citizens receive from their organs?
"Every execution saves a life."
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:it is inconceivable to me how a rational man can suggest such a veto ----I admit that I do not know the details of this veto.
Maybe you should learn the details before spouting off like that. Of course it's inconceivable if you don't know the facts.
quote:However, I doubt you would deny that it is not a lack of federal funds that prompts mr. president to suggest a veto on such a subject.
Bush has said that because so many Americans feel it is morally wrong, it is inappropriate for public money to fund it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bush has said that because so many Americans feel it is morally wrong, it is inappropriate for public money to fund it.
However, there are many more Americans that feel it is an appropriate use for public money. If that is the criteria, then Bush is taking the wrong action.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Artemisia -- do you have statistics to back up that those people are in the majority? And are those statistics ONLY on embryonic stem cells - not all general stem cell research?
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you imagine us executing more and more people because of the great benefits "law-abiding" citizens receive from their organs?
"Every execution saves a life."
No, I cannot imagine that. Are you saying that the pemission to use organs of the executed will create too much a temptation for judges to condemn people to death unlawfully? I think it's a stretch. Anyway, this has gone too far from the original question of acceptability of the stem cell research. Let's not fork into legal area too. What I am trying to learn is why people object to the stem cell research. You do object, don't you?
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you honestly cannot imagine that happening, then I am at a loss as to how I can communicate with you.
If you're just saying that you cannot imagine it because you don't want to "lose" a point, then I still am at a loss as to how I can communicate with you.
If we are just not understanding each other, I'm still at a loss.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think most scientists have trouble with connecting the idea to abortion at all. We look at the situation and say, ok, millions of fetuses being thrown away as medical waste. If we could have them, we have the potential to save lives. Otherwise, they just go to the dump. At no point are we saying that how the fetuses got to the dumpster was acceptable, just that using them to save lives is better than trashing them. And in many ways, I think this is far more respectful of the dead. On the federal funding issue, I have not read the guidelines for a few years. When I did, the funding restriction was such that if I get even a dollar from federal funding for any project, I could not use them at all- even if the stem cell research was supported entirely by an outside source (good scientists have multiple grants and multiple projects). Also, since the university received federal grants, if you worked in a university building, you could not use stem cells at all. So, the federal funding source in essence forbid most researchers. This may have changed since I read the rules.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not all scientists have multiple grants and multiple projects. Most scientists work for labs, and the labs may or may not have multiple grants or projects depending on size and specialization. Any given scientist spends most of their time on one thing- I believe.
So some people think the majority are against killing embryos, and some think the majority are for stem cell research. Since no one knows...
quote:The point of having a president is that he can make an unpopular judgement call.
doesn't really apply, I guess. Anyway, I don't think it's the president's job to always make the unpopular call, regardless of his own opinions. Otherwise we could use a magic 8 ball for president.
Do I get that you are hung up on the word "Veto" meaning "I forbid"?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
This does somewhat address the multiple lab issue. So, that hasn't changed. Also, addresses some of the problems with current lines. And apparantly, this bill that Bush vetoed would not allow for creation of new lines, just use of any line. Cell lines are usually provided for free or cost of shipping, so no fear of people making more profits off creation of new lines.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people think an embryo is a baby. In that case, whether there is profit from the sale or not doesn't matter if the baby is killed. Why is that so hard for some people to understand? The "it's not a baby until it breathes" line is just as irrational (in my humble opinion). But no one seems to want to put a definite mark on the calendar anywhere in between.
I tried to advance 7 weeks once and was excoriated for it. So I've gone back to saying "from conception." Some people really don't know how to build a bridge.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The baby is dead. Whether or not I use it to make stem cells or not, it is still dead. Nothing I do changes that.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends on how we define death. But, by the time stem cell production comes in, the baby's fate has been determined.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If you honestly cannot imagine that happening, then I am at a loss as to how I can communicate with you.
If you're just saying that you cannot imagine it because you don't want to "lose" a point, then I still am at a loss as to how I can communicate with you.
If we are just not understanding each other, I'm still at a loss.
I am not trying to win or lose any point since the purpose of my question is to understand something, not to convince anybody. In particular, I am trying to see if there is a rational (that is not based on faith or emotion) reason that would make a person to object to the stem cell research. You do not have to work through allusions and analogies with me. If you have such a reason, just state it, I'll do my best to understand. However, it is beneficial for the sake of discussion, that you examine your reason first, that it is based on reasonable assumptions, and is logical.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:reason that would make a person to object to the stem cell research
(Note: you should specify it as embryonic stem cell research.)
1. Human life begins at the moment when fertilization is complete.
2. Taking the stem cells kills a human being.
3. Therefore it is immoral to do so.
4. This is not made acceptable or moral because someone else is going to kill the human being in some other fashion.
quote:If you have such a reason, just state it, I'll do my best to understand.
The reason I, and I'm guessing MPH, has been working through allusions is to try to encourage you to take an honest look at other people's beliefs.
I frankly don't believe that you can't imagine this, and I doubt MPH does either. Had you done a modicum of research on the subject, you'd have found several well-written editorials and essays on the subject.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he/she isn't understanding because of this statement
quote: I am trying to see if there is a rational (that is not based on faith or emotion) reason
Obviously, if our personal beliefs within ourselves he classifies as "faith or emotion" then he thinks it isn't rational. So I don't know how to understand what he means by "rational" when my own definition of rational comes from my personal moral/ethical code.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 1. Human life begins at the moment when fertilization is complete.
I neither agree nor disagree. I am willing to keep discussion in the framework of this assumption.
quote: 2. Taking the stem cells kills a human being.
This may be true (may be not) but I do not suggest this. There are ways to harvest stem cells after the fate of the embryo is decided, i.e. from just miscarried one-month-old embryo. It is alive from the stem cells point of view but there is no way it is going to survive.
quote: 3. Therefore it is immoral to do so.
I agree that it is immoral to kill embryo for its cells if we assume it is human from conception. As I said, let's accept this for the sake of argument.
quote: 4. This is not made acceptable or moral because someone else is going to kill the human being in some other fashion.
It isn't. I do not suggest it.
quote:...Had you done a modicum of research on the subject, you'd have found several well-written editorials and essays on the subject.
This sounds an awful lot like "I do not want to talk to you" to me. I might just want to talk, or I might want to learn what this forum has to say on the subject. I am not even pretending that I am an expert on the subject but so are most of the people. I am curious to know the train of their thought.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Croc, it sounds like you agree or could agree with everything Dag said, so why is it you cannot imagine a rational person objecting to the practice?
Another of my concerns would be that they're not going to wait around for women to miscarry so they can get their stem cells. I worry about the creation of human embryos for the purpose of medical research on embryonic stem cells.
That may not be what this veto is about; I'm less familiar with the particulars. But it is a concern.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: ... our personal beliefs within ourselves he classifies as "faith or emotion" then he thinks it isn't rational. So I don't know how to understand what he means by "rational" when my own definition of rational comes from my personal moral/ethical code.
And your moral/ethical code comes from..? If you consider yourself rational, you won't have a problem with understanding that everything derived from your religious beliefs may not be taken as valid by someone who does not share your beliefs.
I defined what I meant by "rational" explicitely. I think the word "rational" is appropriate. Here's a quotation.
quote:dictionary.com: rational - Influenced by reasoning rather than by emotion. - relating to, based on, or guided by reason, principle, fairness, logic, a legitimate state interest, or a consideration of fact.
quote:If you consider yourself rational, you won't have a problem with understanding that everything derived from your religious beliefs may not be taken as valid by someone who does not share your beliefs.
Yes, but we're not the ones who aren't understanding others. You are.
It's not that you disagree - heck, I'm not even sure all of the people who have addressed you agree on the subject. There are lots of disagreements on this subject.
It's that you're unable to view those who disagree with you as doing so for rational reasons. This makes us think it is pointless to speak with you on the subject.
When I listed a rational rationale for supporting the veto, you proceeded to list reasons why you disagreed with the rationale, which demonstrates to me that you still don't get why your original post was problematic.
You don't have to agree with the rationale to think it rational.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
