Stem Cell Rsch-This August in CongressFollow

Latest & Greatest Update! Story

Word has it that Tony Snow was going to go on about how it was really motivated by Bush's fiscal responsibility but all the members of the media left because they were bored by the talk of economics.

*cough* The fact that he's allowing private research, but not funding federal research is the first clue that it's about the funding of the science. What about this is so hard to understand?


There's a differerence between "Ok to do", and "OK to fund with federal dollars". It's the funding of these things that he's opposing, not the research itself. Basically, he has to choose where he believes the funding is best spent. He believes that the research going on right now can be done just as effectively with other forms of stem cells and/or the handful of lines that already exist. That's certainly a personal moral choice, but at the end of the day he's deciding what to spend money on, not deciding what is legal and what is illegal.


Funny that Liberals historically have a hard time telling those two things apart.

Not a thing. Bush is opposed to allowing federal funds to be spent on the research because "The simple answer is he thinks murder's wrong [...] The president is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something living and making it dead for the purposes of scientific research."

It has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility and everything to do with a value judgement Bush is making on the morality of the science.
Yes, it is. It's a choice Bush is making based on his ideas of morality. That's kind of been everyone's point.You are the only one to keep using the "illegal" strawman. You use it repeatedly. No one is saying that all stem cell research is illegal. No one is even saying that all embryonic stem cell research is illegal. Everyone (except you it seems) understands that the "ban" is on federal funding. You can let that argument go now.. it's okay. We understand.

This is, in fact, the second time you've jumped into a thread and used the "you don't understand it's not illegal!" strawman. Once can be excused as a mistake, but I'm thinking this is an actual thought out tactic of yours.
Have you turned liberal? Because you seem to get tripped into thinking that everyone's calling it illegal time and time again.

Edited, Jul 18th 2006 at 7:03pm EDT by Jophiel

Because you (and others) can't seem to get past the issue that just because something *isn't* illegal does not mean that the federal government should fund it. Federal funds represent *everyone's* money. Not just your's. Not just mine. Whether you like it or not, there is a percentage of the people who don't agree with embryonic stem cell research. The funds that would be spent on that research would be partly theirs just as much as it would be partly mine and partly yours. They have as much right to expect that their money not be spent on things they don't agree with as anyone else, right?

It's exactly the same argument that comes up with the Arts funding periodically. And it ends up being twisted around similarly. No one's saying that Penthouse can't publish pornography. But some people don't like that their tax dollars are funding what they consider to be pornography. Get it?

It is entirely about the funding. Not the research itself. It's about who's money is being spent on that research. Funny that I don't see you blasting the folks opposed to ANWAR drilling because they're "arguing based purely on moral reasons". Just because it's not a moral choice you agree with does not make it invalid. Nor does it make it any less about the funding of such a thing (although in the case of ANWAR, we are talking about a ban on private drilling rather then simply preventing the federal government from spending the money itself).

Double standard? Yeah. I think so. Look. I'm all for stem cell research myself. I don't even have a problem with embryonic stem cell research. But I do have an issue when folks assume that any Conservative (or Bush in this case) who opposes federal funding of such research must be doing so because of some blind religious ideology. Um. Ever consider that it's simply a respect for the beliefs of a percentage of the taxpaying public? Ever consider that they might have the exact same respect regardless of who's morals we were talking about?

Again. It's about the use of public funds for the research. How many times do I have to keep repeating this? If Bush was so totally opposed to the research itself, why did he fund *any* of it? Why not push for a ban? Clearly, he's not. Clearly, he's acting out of respect of a group of taxpayers. Clearly, that respect is specific to not requiring that they pay for something that they don't agree with. Sheesh. It's just not that complicated...



How on earth can you have gotten that so completely backwards? I wasn't saying that you or anyone else wasy saying it was illegal. Quite the opposite. I'm pointing out that Liberals tend to believe that if something isn't illegal that it should be ok to fund it.

Do you understand what I'm getting at? I'm saying that there's a difference between what is legal and what should be funded with taxpayer money. And yeah. There can certainly be moral issues involved. I'm *also* saying that this is part of the basis of conservative fiscal ideology. That we should only be paying for things that goverment must do not everything that government can do. Legality defines what we can do, but does not mean that we should have a mandate to fund it.

That's how it ties back to conservative fiscal ideology. That's what I've been trying to get at this whole time. If you are a conservative, and therefore believe that spending should only be on things that must be done by the federal government, then you see federal funding on embryonic stem cells as a questionable thing because that research can be done privately, and some taxpayers will oppose their dollars being spent in that manner. If you are a liberal, you'll tend to think that government should spend money on programs simply because it *can* do so, so in your mind the fact that it's a viable line of research, is not illegal, and may produce benefit is sufficient reason to fund it federally, despite any other ethical considerations.


Fundamentally, it comes down to the approach to federal spending, not specific ethics. Conservatives tend to avoid federal spending on *any* programs that are ethically controversial, regardless of who's ethics are involved. That's an outgrowth of their approach on spending, not their specific ethical position. The fact that in this case it *also* happens to fall in line with an ethical position that a largish voting block of Republicans hold is irrelevant. They'd be opposing this spending if it was research designed to confirm the legitimacy of the shroud of Turin just as quickly.

I have to agree.*

I don't think Bush is pandering for political purposes. I think he really does have a Christian Conservative view of things, and I do think he has "compromised" in a small way by continuing the funding of research on already-existing stem cell lines.

I think he's a total asslick for trying to block the further funding, but the truth is it's his prerogative as president to veto legislation if he's strongly opposed to it. If enough of the American public disagree, then enough Congressmen should be able to overturn the veto.

Otherwise, we'll just have to wait until he's out of office.




*edit: lesson learned.

Edited, Jul 18th 2006 at 10:42pm EDT by Jawbox

I don't think it's that cut and dried though. Clearly, he's tossing the Religious Right a bone. Obviously is a compromise. That's what you do in politics. But compromise means that both sides walk away without getting everything they wanted. The "he's opposed to murder" statement by Snow was clearly aimed at playing to the Religious Right. It's a bit of code to say "Look. See. I gave you something". The fact that it's a something that doesn't really cost him much, isn't a far stretch from standard conservative approach (again. *Not* funding something is rarely going to get you in trouble with conservatives), and is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things just makes it a smart political play.


When you strip away the rhetoric on the issue, the real "need" for embryonic stem cells for current research projects is pretty minimal. Will we need it down the line? Yeah. And I'm sure funding will be approved then (or private research will see a pot of gold and jump in with both feet). But by most accounts from professionals in the field (when you strip away the very broad statements) is that they're still testing some very basic fundamentals of what stem cells can do. Saying we need embryonic stem cells right now is like saying we need freon research so we can start working on the Air Conditioning systems in automobiles while we're still researching the wheel.

The benefits of embryonic stem cells are pretty specific to end-use products. Because those cells specifically are "young" and can therefore be used for a wider assortment of things and retain a greater ability to be recreated (you can essentially grow more from them, hence the "lines" of cells). But other cells are just as useful for determining the basics of how to manipulate the cells in the first place. Adult cells and umbilical cells may not allow us to grow viable organs. or nerve cells, or all that other nifty stuff, but we're not even close yet. Those cells are perfectly ok for figuring out *how* to do those things. Which is part of the argument Bush used for his position. We don't *need* to use those cells specifically yet. Even the tainted lines are still usable for the very basic stuff we're still learning how to do. No one's arguing that this is all that will ever be available. Just that it's all we *need* to use right now for the research that's being done.

Lol. It's just that you said that, and then turned around and said essentially the exact opposite of what I'd been talking about.

It *is* politics. It *is* about finding a compromise position on the issue. I don't know if I'd call it "pandering", unless you'd use that term for any and every other political decision made in the history of politics. The very basic concept of a representative republic relies on the assumption that those representatives will "pander" to their constituents, right? Bashing the process when it results in something you don't agree with is a bit over the top, right?


I just think that before people start bandying about these strong rhetorical terms in a discussion like this, they need to replace the issue at hand with one that they support/oppose (depending on what's going on) and look at it from that perspective. Before you bash bush for not funding embryonic stem cell research, replace that funding with funding for a "bridge to no-where" (if that's something you don't agree with), or "religious instruction", or "abstinence education". If you'd hold a different position about the issue based on exactly *what* is being funded (or not funded), then you need to accept that your disagreement isn't about some absolute moral "right", but purely because in this particular issue you don't agree.


That does not eliminate your right to disagree. But you should at least lay off some of the "I'm right and you're evil for not agreeing with me" rhetoric that seems to go on. With this particular issue, it's a pretty darn minor thing. Oh no! He funded stem cell research. He funded embryonic stem cell research. But that evil ******* didn't fund additional embyonic stem cell collection! He killed Kenny! Get him!!!


I'm serious here. It's a pretty minor esoteric point. In the grand scheme of things, it's virtually irrelevant. He didn't fund *everything*. Deal with it. 5 years ago there was *zero* federal funding for stem cell research. What exactly is the problem? There's some saying about gifts and horses. I'm sure I'll recall it if I think for a bit...

According to the linked article, over 70% of the public supports federal funding for embryonic research and the congressional vote speaks for itself. Your percentage of people is in the strict minority.Sure. At least they sack up and admit that their objection is based 100% on their dislike for pornography and not a concern about fiscal policy in general.Really? Bush didn't say so.Because Bush has openly said that his objections are based on an adversion to killing embryos. Christ, it's not as if Bush has been saying "This is unsound fiscal policy" and everyone read an ethic reason into it -- Bush has only expressed ethical concerns about this issue.Because they were already dead. Duh. For someone who keeps saying "it's not that hard", you have a real issue with the obvious.
For the -nth time, I invite you to find me the congressional Republicans (or the president!) who are claiming this stance. Not your spin, not your long-winded excuses on why an ethical decision about a funding issue makes it really a fiscally based choice -- find me someone who is opposed to this issue because of the money and not because of the "murder" issue.

Mmm hmm.

Bush needs to sit down and shut up. He's a fUcking *** hat.

Edited, Jul 19th 2006 at 7:19pm EDT by Katie

Except that those toddlers he was surrounded by were (presumably) specifically the "snowflake babies". They *are* children who would have been destroyed or used for that research if they'd not been "adopted" and allowed to be born. So yeah. It's a relevant point to make, because those children were not used for research and were *also* not incinerated.

Is that indicative of all of those embryos left over from IVF? Of course not. But you're dealing with a highly charged issue here, with both sides over exagerrating their positions. The immediacy of the need for embryonic stem cells specifically for research is just as exagerated as the need for those embryos for "snowflake babies". Both sides do this, so excuse me if I take a bit more pragmatic approach to the issue.


My point has been and still is that given that there is a controversy over this (whether you agree or not is irrelevant), it makes sense to work into the issue slowly rather then quickly. That's what Bush is doing. I'll reiterate the point that 5 years ago there was *zero* funding for any kind of stem cell research. My main complaint has always been the use of the term "ban" in this context. We're looking at a process here. That means you start at one point and move toward another. Maybe it's the conservative in me, but I don't see anything wrong with taking it a step at a time and seeing where it leads rather then leaping to assumptive conclusions from the beginnning and turning the whole thing into an agenda based issue.


I just see this as a created crisis. It's not like the legistlation is really falling behind the science. We've barely scratched the surface of this science so far. It's not like we could be building cures for cancer *today* if only we could use those embryos. We're still likely decades away from any commercial medical product based on stem cells. And my understanding of the science is that embryonic cells really only matter that much in terms of that end product, not the research used to get there. The impression that we're preventing cures from being discovered by not funding embryonic stem cell research is an exageration of the truth. The truth is that we're nowhere near that stage yet. It's somewhat akin to insisting that we use live humans for testing of a medicine, when we could still do lab testing on other animals for decades before we need to do that and then wondering why some people think it's a bit early to be risking people's health and lives in such testing.


It's a lot of smoke IMO. Pass or don't pass, it doesn't really matter to me. I just get bothered when people get so caught up in the rhetoric surrounding the issue. It becomes more important as a tool to attack the "other side", then as a real medical research area. These kinds of things tend to work themselves out without us sitting on the sidelines making tons of political hay about them. The research will progress one way or the other. And when it gets to the point where real cures become possible, then you'll see massive progress made and decisions about how to proceed will appear. But insisting that folks toss aside their ethical concerns over what might happen is just as "wrong" in my mind as blindly blocking research because it might require some ethical corners be cut that you might not like. Both are guessing at both what the science will reveal and how it'll be used down the line.

Bush's position is reasonably middle of the road IMO. I know. It's crazy. But how about we actually let the research solidify a bit before we decide which direction to go and what we will and wont fund directly? Doesn't that just make sense?

The one has nothing at all to do with the other. When a couple is deciding what to do with their remaining IVF embryos, their decision is to either donate them to the Snowflake program or to destroy them. Should the couple decide to destroy the embryos for whatever reason (most likely because they dislike the notion of someone having "their" children), the option to donate for research merely gives the parents an extra means of destroying the embryos while furthering study.

It's a very, very weak argument to assume that a couple who would have normally wished to donate their embryos to the Snowflake program and help an otherwise infertile couple give birth would suddenly say "***** them, let's have our embryos plucked apart for research!" instead. Nothing has, nor is, nor probably will ever stop couples from donating to the program if that's where they wish their eggs to end up. No one is stealing away Snowflake embryos for medical research and no one would ever need to because the glut is on the incineration side.

Right now, the Snowflake program says it has thawed 1191 embryos in the last ten years, conducted 222 "transfers" which resulted in 104 pregancies. According to the Snowflake site, there are over 400,000 frozen embryos currently. As worthwhile a program as it may be, it simply does not strike a chord in most couples and nine out of ten embryos wind up in the incinerator when some could be used for medical study.

Edited, Jul 20th 2006 at 1:20am EDT by Jophiel