First ESC Clinical Trials to BeginFollow

Well... "withheld" implies that it's something we should have but aren't being given, but I suppose there's no non-biased way to present that.


Sure. Find polls that ask just the funding question and just about embryonic stem cell research and make clear that the process of harvesting destroys the embryo. Let me know what you find...

Here's the closest language I could find:




Yeah. It's from 2001. Couldn't actually find one that included all the factors this question includes. Most conflate ESC with the broader "stem cells", or don't include funding as a component, or don't discuss the issue of destruction of the embryos in the process. Heck. One I ran across actually implied that the stem cells were just harvested from the embryos as though they were unharmed by the procedure or something...


My point is the same it's been every time this issue comes up. This is a very contentious issue, largely because of the ease with which it can be used as an attack against the "other side". Liberal organizations have spent millions generating thousands of polls on this, presumably specifically so they can do what Joph does whenever this topic comes up. Yet, it's amazing how few of those polls actually ask the important questions and how many are incredibly misleading.

When you ensure that the person taking the poll knows what exactly ESC research entails, they are much more likely to oppose it. Heck. That should be your answer right there. If someone dislikes something the more they know about it, that should be your first clue that this is a bad idea. But for some reason, this issue has become some kind of "cause" on the left. The idea of painting conservatives as anti-science when your argument only works best when people are ignorant of the actual science just strikes me as something you'd only see in politics.

Edited, Jan 26th 2009 7:00pm by gbaji

I'm stating that the question asked was one giving laughably inaccurate information. That's just a simple fact. It's not really grounds for you and I to start making up our own polls in our imaginations, it's just a statement that the question gives false information. No, it's not at all.Shocker I already posted a poll which described exactly where the embroys come from and that they will be destroyed anyway if not used for this purpose. This description exactly fits the the one used in the bill which passed through Congress. People approve of it by a factor of 30% over disapproval. Fancy that -- when people actually have the facts about it, they approve of it by nearly 2:1.

I'm not finding the part in your poll which states where the embryos are coming from. I thought we wanted the people to know "exactly what is going on"? Or maybe not, huh?(A) The embryos are not destroyed in the first week
(B) The embryos are not destroyed exclusively for the purpose of gaining stem cells

There's also an obvious sin of omission in that the poll never mentions where the embryos come from. While this little fact may not matter to the Catholic Church, it can matter very, very much to those being asked. The question, as posed, leaves one with the assumption that the embryos are created exclusively to derive stem cells from.

Hey, maybe they're getting women pregnant on some Caribbean island and forcing them to have abortions for the embryo! Remember that one?

Yes. See. Thousands!!! ;)

I'm sorry. Should I have put the word "literally" in there to show that I was being sarcastic and the number shouldn't actually be taken literally? I know. That got me in trouble the last time...


Doesn't change the fact that the political argument in play is that conservatives are "anti-science" for opposing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, yet the more those polled on the subject know about how embryonic stem cell research works, the less they support funding for it. One usually associates ignorance with the non-scientific side of an issue, yet somehow that isn't the case here.

Lol. Look further down the page Joph...

Let me quote just a bit above the quote I already provided:



EDIT: The fields are "All, Republicans, Democrats, Independents"

Notice anything? The number for approval when asked the same question in almost the exact same format as the Time poll you quoted is actually *higher*. Yet, the same poll, with the same people produced a 62% approval of Bush's decision to not spend federal money on the research.


The order has to do with the funding. Funding. Funding. Want me to say it again? The funding. At the federal level. Not state. Not local. Federal. Do you have a mental block that prevents you from understanding the issue at question here?

I have *never* argued that ESC isn't a worthwhile area of research. I have simply agreed that it shouldn't be funded with taxpayer dollars. You're asking people who feel strongly about the treatment of embryo's to spend their money on something that is abhorrent to them. While I couldn't care less myself, I respect that it does matter to other people and maybe we shouldn't force them to pay for something like that.

And I'm sure that's *exactly* why 75% of those in the poll I quoted supported ESC research, but also supported Bush's decision not to fund it federally.


What part of that is confusing to you? What's funny is that we go through the same damn argument every single time and you still fail to get that the majority opposition is not to the use of embryos for research in principle, but to the use of federal taxpayer money to fund said research. While that may seem silly to you, it's obviously a very significant distinction for a lot of people.


The issue I was responding to was about the possibility of Obama reversing Bush's executive order. So how about we stick to the one thing that order involves?

Edited, Jan 26th 2009 9:19pm by gbaji

good grief, stop quoting a 2001 poll already.

Come on, people are opposed to using tax payer money for anything unless, or until they can be shown and convinced of some tangible benefit to themselves or their community for the money spent.

So if you simply ask people if they want to fund something, without any further iquisition or explanation, the answer will always be 'no'.

It's about whatever excuse he can wiggle into at the moment. It was about chopping up babies until it was shown that most people aren't opposed to chopping up babies, especially when told that the babies are coming from IVF clinics and would be otherwise destroyed. So now it's that people don't want to spend tax money on it. Oh, but they're okay with spending state tax money on it but they're really, really mad if it's federal tax money. 'Cause, you know, most tax-payers make a huge distinction between the two.

Of course, as the '06/'07 polling shows, a majority people in the past couple of years think that the federal funding rules should be changed to allow federal funding but I'm sure that doesn't count either. Oh, and the Democrats don't really want to pass legislation regarding it despite a completely clean bill having passed through Congress with a sizable majority in both chambers back in 2007.

The obvious answer, of course, is that Gbaji can't admit when Bush is (was) on the losing side of an issue and so he'll contort himself in any possible way to avoid having to face facts.

Edited, Jan 27th 2009 11:28am by Jophiel

Nope. But, like I said, it'll be clear enough when the first bills hit the table. I'm not really arguing it either way as much as I don't have a dog in the hunt to argue for anyway so I'm content to wait and see.

Sure is. I wonder why no conservative outlets have commissioned recent polls stating exactly where the embryos come from, what would happen to them otherwise and then ask how people feel about federal funding for it.

Gee, that's soooooo telling! I wonder why they don't want people to find out the answers!

I like this "Let's make up polls and guess what the answers would be" game. It's fun!

Edited, Jan 27th 2009 10:19pm by Jophiel

Sounds like a real shadowy piece of legislature to me

Legislation. Let's see what it looks like when it comes out of conference committee and judge then. We both know, or at least I know, and you should know, that how a bill is written at the beginning of the legislative process has virtually no bearing on the language that ends up getting to the President's desk.

Pretty much already said what I want in this thread, and am in a "wait and see" mode on this. I am amused by your characterization of that article as "Obama is expected to sign off on an executive order within the next week or two", given that the article doesn't say that at all.

Just curious if that was just wishful thinking on your part Joph?


Interestingly enough, if you'd read the full article, there's a clue perhaps why he hasn't given the order. It might be illegal. If Congress already passed a bill making it illegal for NIH funds to go towards research that creates or destroys human embryos, then Bush's executive order (and Clinton's for that matter) are all just window dressing. Congress has to pass a bill authorizing exactly that funding (effectively reversing the existing law) regardless of what Obama does.

Now, they may do that, but just to repeat my earlier points, I suspect it'll have a lot less support than it did when they knew Bush would veto it and I also expect it'll come up just over a year from now. We'll have to wait and see though.

Then we refine the question to be more accurate thusly:


Alternately we can ask two questions there, one on supporting or opposing the legality of ESC research, and one on supporting or opposing it being federally funded.

Edited, Feb 4th 2009 11:37pm by Aripyanfar

You don't have 6 weeks to do the harvesting. You have years, even decades. Surplus embryos, and there are always surpluses with the process, are frozen and kept on behalf of the parents in case they want more children later. It's wasteful to throw them out immediately and repeat an extremely costly and medically harmful intervention to create more embryos when you can keep the first lot around for later.

Several years after an IVF birth, parents are usually contacted and asked if they want their surplus embryos to be kept longer, or if they are certain now that they can be disposed of or used in a different way. Sometimes parents decide to donate their embryos to other couples. Sometimes they ask for them to be thrown out. Sometimes, depending on jurisdiction, they donate them to research. Sometimes, they ask for the storage to continue on their own behalf.

PS, ok I'm reading this thread kind of piecemeal, which I'm sure is irritating. Let me do some more reading.

Edited, Feb 4th 2009 11:54pm by Aripyanfar