Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

You mean like those human lives that are thrown in the trash every day? Those human lives?

Please.

And because nothing has been found yet means nothing will be found?

Please.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 31, 2006 10:34 AM

The ad campaign is repulsive because it’s dishonest in promising cures to these diseases, cures that are uncertain and yet to be discovered.

No, you’re misrepresenting the ads. They don’t promise that Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) will lead to cures - they say (factually) that there is a lot of potential in the research to provide a cure. MJF says “it gives us a chance for hope”. Are you calling “a chance for hope” a promise? There’s a difference there, and you’re calling them liars based on ignoring the difference.

In the ad Caviezal, Heaton and Suppan tell Missouri voters the facts about embryonic stem cell research and then state “Don’t be tricked”, “Don’t be deceived”, and “Don’t be fooled.”

Yes, they have put together that ad, and they say such things. However, what they say are not the facts. They claim things about the Amendment that simply aren’t true.

For example, they say that the Amendment enshrines the right to clone people when the actual text is “No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.”

Dana, you’re accepting the spin from one side of the debate as factual, and calling the other side of the debate all lies. I know that you really agree with one side, but accepting statements that just aren’t true doesn’t help.

Embryonic stem cell research has produced nothing, not one single cure or treatment.

However, it has incredible potential, much more potential than adult stem cell research. This is because adult stem cells can so far grow into only about 5 types of cells, whereas embryonic stem cells can grow into about 200 types of cells.

The argument that we should ban early ESCR because it hasn’t yet provided any cures doesn’t make any sense. That’s like saying that Ford shouldn’t have spent the money to design the Model T because there weren’t any sales yet and there were already horses in use. Before the research is complete, you judge based on potential, and ESCR has great potential.

But never did we hope and pray for a cure that was discovered through the destruction of human lives.

Fortunately, that’s not really a concern with ESCR, unless you consider 8-cell clumps of undifferentiated tissue that would be thrown away otherwise to be morally equivalent to a human. To me, it’s pretty obvious that blastocysts are not a human life.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 10:57 AM

Thanks for pushing back science to the dark ages, Dana. For giving those with currently incurable illnesses no hope for a cure. For backing up the utter callousness of Limbaugh’s stance. And for incorrectly asserting that we have to destroy human lives in order for stem cell research to proceed. You clearly didn’t read the bill that Bush vetoed. If you had, you wouldn’t trump your effette morality about “destroying lives,” as those potential lives are currently being thrown away, and will continue to be thrown away, thanks to people like you. But what do you care? You’ve clearly adopted the popular Republican masquerade of endorsing a “Culture of Life” that in truth has no regard for the living – specifically, those who are most in need of the promises that science is trying to deliver.

You argue that Michael J. Fox doesn’t desrve our sympathy, because he suffers from a disease he cares about curing. But it’s okay for a baseball player to tell us “don’t be fooled” by the likes of Michael J. Fox. Why is it against the rules to disallow someone who suffers from an incurable disease to try and support a cure for such a disease? If someone doesn’t suffer fromo said disease, his or her life will not benefit from a cure.

Oh, and the main reason why embryonic stem cell research has produced no results so far is because Bush only allowed scientists to work on a very small line of cells, which turned out to be contaminated.

Just because a cure hasn’t come about yet doesn’t mean one won’t. But what do you care? You’re not the one with Parkinson’s disease.

Posted by: Darth Independent at October 31, 2006 11:00 AM

Dana
I agree with the post.

The Missouri item up for vote also including cloning. The whole proposal was paid for at a tune of over 25 million dollars by a couple who, if the proposal passes, will reap billions of dollars from their business that is part of that exploitation of life.

The concept of creating life to kill life is repulsive. And is even more disgusting that nothing good is gained from those actions.

The ethics of embryonic stem cell anything is so below the radar. It is everything evil. It is satanic. Why not go for a cure in an area that is morally correct, has a track record of success, and does not have to destroy life to get it?

Thanks Dana for the post.

Posted by: tomh at October 31, 2006 11:07 AM

The Missouri item up for vote also including cloning.

Correct. It explicitly bans it.

The concept of creating life to kill life is repulsive. And is even more disgusting that nothing good is gained from those actions.

Is that more disgusting than your lie here? There is a lot of potential for gain, and there are no living humans destroyed, just use of clumps of undifferentiated cells that would be destroyed anyway.

It is satanic.

I’m glad we’re discussing that rationally. Whew.

Why not go for a cure in an area that is morally correct, has a track record of success, and does not have to destroy life to get it?

Assuming you mean adult stem cell research, there’s nothing in the bill to prohibit or prevent such research, so this is a straw man.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 11:16 AM

What Lawnboy and Darth Independent said.

Btw, this is just priceless:
“They [Liberals, Fox, Couric] get personal, mocking every conservative illness, foible and failing (including my own) real, fake or forged,”

Conservative illness!!! Real, Fake, or Forged!!! And he actually used the word mocking!
Truly ironic and hilarious.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 31, 2006 11:18 AM

Bush is not to blame for not allowing embryonic stemm cell research. The bill he vetoed only was that federal dollars could not be spent on that type of research. Embryonic stem cell research is being done throughout the country by various agencies. Their is potential. But the potential is not very good. The researchers have made zero progress toward a solution to any illnes. Their is potential in making oil out of rock, but not very good.

You anti-life posters can rant all you want about the names to call the embryo. It is still life. There is potential in a proper use of those embryoes. Why not pursue a program that extends life and has a higher probability of good for the common interest of society?

There is hope in adult stem cell research. The researchers are finding success on a regular basis. Why not go with a proven track record? There is so much more to be done.

Posted by: tomh at October 31, 2006 11:19 AM

Lawnboy,

At what point did you cease to be a clump of undifferentiated tissue? Were you not a moral equivalent of human being at that point in your life? I sure know that I was at the same point in my life.

Alan Crosby - former 8 cell blastocyst

Posted by: Alan Crosby at October 31, 2006 11:23 AM

Is anybody here against In Vitro Fertilization? Quite a number of embryos there are destroyed after they are unneeded for the creation of a new life. That is how it is, and that is the issue the Republicans fear to push back on.

If these embryos are to be destroyed anyways after the creation of life, why not use them for research to sustain and preserve it, with the Parent’s permission?

Then the whole process becomes life-giving, and you don’t have to argue that fertility doctors are serial baby killers.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2006 11:24 AM

Bush is not to blame for not allowing embryonic stemm cell research. The bill he vetoed only was that federal dollars could not be spent on that type of research.

You’re partially correct here. Bush is not necessarily to blame. ESCR is at the point of basic research now, and a better policy by Bush likely would not have led to cures yet.

However, we would probably be much closer. Additionally, it’s a red herring to say that all he did was restrict the use of federal dollars. For basic medical research like this, federal funding is the primary source of support. His approach very much harmed the ability of researchers to find cures.

But the potential is not very good.

tomh, this is just inaccurate. The potential is huge. That’s why 200 different non-profit medical groups support Missouri’s Proposition 2. Please don’t make up stuff just because you don’t like the answer based on facts.

The researchers have made zero progress toward a solution to any illnes.

No, that’s also wrong. They’ve made progress, but they haven’t proceeded completely to a cure. But there has been progress.

You anti-life posters can rant all you want about the names to call the embryo. It is still life.

Why is it a rant to disagree with you? Why is it a rant to call things by their proper names? The clumps of cells we are talking about are officially and really blastocysts, undifferentiated masses of cells. There is life in them, just as there is life in a skin cell. That doesn’t mean they are a human life.

There is potential in a proper use of those embryoes.

I agree with those words, but we disagree one what the “proper use” is. I think the proper use is to try to solve life-threatening diseases. You think it is to hold them in deep storage in the vain hope that someone might adopt a “snowflake” until they get too old and have to be thrown away.

Why not pursue a program that extends life and has a higher probability of good for the common interest of society?

That’s the question I was going to ask, since ESCR has a higher potential for cures than adult SCR.

There is hope in adult stem cell research. The researchers are finding success on a regular basis. Why not go with a proven track record?

No one’s stopping that. But why not go with the approach that has higher potential as well? They aren’t mutually exclusive.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 11:30 AM

Alan,

At what point did you cease to be a clump of undifferentiated tissue?

When the stem cells differentiated.

Were you not a moral equivalent of human being at that point in your life?

No, because at that point, I was about as equally likely to be expelled from my mother’s system and never be known about as I was to implant in her womb and grow. Many millions of blastocysts are created naturally each year and never implant, and we don’t mourn those. There’s a real double-standard here.

I sure know that I was at the same point in my life.

That’s the difference between knowing and believing.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 11:33 AM

“If these embryos are to be destroyed anyways after the creation of life, why not use them for research to sustain and preserve it, with the Parent’s permission?”

Maybe you haven’t heard…this is already legal in most states. Private research is ongoing with all kinds of stem cell research. The issue is whether Federal Tax Dollars should be used for this. I believe the Federal Government should stay out of it.

Secondly, there is little benefit to adding embryonic stem cell lines until we have research showing promise of a cure/treatment for something. We already have hundreds of ESC lines. Standardization of stem cell lines makes the experiments more likely to be repeatable in the early stages of research (an essential part of the scientific method).

Posted by: Don at October 31, 2006 11:45 AM

we were promised a cure for cancer and aids not so long ago. what happened there?

Posted by: jm1656 at October 31, 2006 11:49 AM

LawnBoy, Stephen D., et al.

If embryonic stem cell research has so much potential, then why isn’t there tons of private funding to support it. If there are tons of private money supporting it, then why must the Federal Govt. As a nation with limited public funds, why is this research more important than any of a host of others. For that matter, why is it more important than many non-research related expenditures. If there is money to be made with the potential cures resulting from this research, I bet there would be plenty of private enterpise funding it.

keith

Posted by: keith at October 31, 2006 11:50 AM

Maybe you haven’t heard…this is already legal in most states. Private research is ongoing with all kinds of stem cell research. The issue is whether Federal Tax Dollars should be used for this.

No, that’s not the issue here. The direct issue at hand is an amendment to the Missouri Constitution that would say that any research into embryonic stem cells and any treatment based on embryonic stem cells that is legal at the Federal level will be legal in Missouri. The reason such an amendment is necessary (in addition to the obvious reasons) is that other bills the last few years that would have supported unrelated biotechnology (medical devices, agriculture, etc.) have been stopped based on the threat of adding anti-ESCR amendments to them.

This amendment is necessary, not because of federal funding, but to allow Missouri to try to grow financially and medically.

The federal funding issue is also important, but it’s not specifically what’s going on in Missouri.

Secondly, there is little benefit to adding embryonic stem cell lines until we have research showing promise of a cure/treatment for something.

Well, reasearch has shown promise, so we’ve cleared that hurdle.

We already have hundreds of ESC lines.

Yes, but the vast majority of those cannot be used in research that has federal funding. Only about 16 of the original lines that the President approved turned out to be viable, and those lines are hard to get.

Standardization of stem cell lines makes the experiments more likely to be repeatable in the early stages of research (an essential part of the scientific method).

It’s even better if you can show that a technique is repeatable across multiple lines.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 11:52 AM

Dana -

Good article. You have rightly pointed out the truths behind this issue.

“Michael J. Fox and Ben Cardin are misleading the public by playing on the hopes and fears of millions of Americans who are suffering from debilitating diseases…”

Unfortunately, during an election season, both sides play the “fear card.” I personally like Fox’s acting ability. I like his sense of humor. But when he crosses into the political arena his abilities do not shine as brightly. When the truth is given, Fox looks foolish in these ads.

Posted by: Don at October 31, 2006 11:52 AM

If embryonic stem cell research has so much potential, then why isn’t there tons of private funding to support it.

There is, but the difference in scale between federal and private funding is large.

As a nation with limited public funds, why is this research more important than any of a host of others.

I believe that’s a question for the qualified and expert grant-decision boards to make, not the politicians.

If there is money to be made with the potential cures resulting from this research, I bet there would be plenty of private enterpise funding it.

There is some, but it’s on a different scale. Even in the context of this argument, the amendment is necessary to make sure that Missouri families have access to cures, whether they come from federal or private funding.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 11:55 AM

Dana is right. No known cure means no known cure. We’ve had enough of you no good college brainwashed liberals. It’s bad enough that uncurable diseases like smallpox and polio have been beaten back. Let everything be - we dont need change!!

Posted by: Schwamp at October 31, 2006 12:10 PM

Whats wrong with cloning?

Posted by: kctim at October 31, 2006 12:25 PM

Dana,

Embryonic stem cell research is a particularly controversial because, with the present state of techonology, starting a stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo and/or therapeutic cloning (SCNT).

Stephen Daugherty brings up a great ethical question. What is the difference between In Vitro Fertilization and Stem Cell Research in so far as the creation of multiple embryos and their subsequent “destruction”?

I think great questions like that are why I enjoy this forum so much. My wife and I have personally been through infertility treatments, adoption, natural pregnancy, stillborn birth, miscarriage, and biological birth. I’ve spent no small amount of time thinking about when life begins. And that’s the great debate here, when does life begin.

And I’ll tell you I don’t honestly know the answer to that question. I know I don’t believe in abortion except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother’s life. I do believe in In Vitro Fertilization as a viable and moral method for a married couple to get pregnant and have children.

Ultimately, I think we should support Embryonic Stem Cell research. I think there should be some tight guidelines but there are tons of frozen embryos that are going to be discarded, and there is so much potential for good here.

Perhaps someday we will understand better about the beginings of life and when we know more we can make wiser judgements.

I won’t be voting for a Democrat candidate this year for a lot of reasons, but I will be encouraging my fellow Republicans to change our position on Stem Cell Research.

Tom

Posted by: Tom U. at October 31, 2006 12:27 PM

no matter how loud you voice against, it is useless, stem cell research and human cloning is a certainty, it WILL happen, it will profit to the countries that funded it, putting behind the countries that did not. Besides curing deseases and increase human longevity it will provide gain, because of that, there will always be a place where people do it while others complain about it.

Posted by: goby at October 31, 2006 12:28 PM

kctim,

Are you asking what’s wrong with cloning individual cells, like happens with Stomatic Nuclear Cell Transfer? Or do you mean what’s wrong with creating a new person with identical genes to a previous person, like the amendment bans?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 12:28 PM

I am so sick and tired of right-wing nutjobs dragging us down with their crap, can we please secede? We’ll split into two countries for 20 years, and at the end of the 20 years whoever’s in better shape takes over.

Posted by: David S at October 31, 2006 12:29 PM

Dana et. al.—

I wonder why not a single one of you complained when Michael J. Fox was campaigning for Republican Senator Arlen Specter? Why was there no conservative backlash then? Is this simply partisanship? Do any of you really believe what you are saying? I wonder, do you even completely understand the topic?

Posted by: jrb at October 31, 2006 12:34 PM

LawnBoy,

You missed one of the points. Maybe there isn’t enough private funding because the research doesn’t have as high a potential as some might think. BTW, we live in a 30+ trillion dollar economy. Our federal spending is less than a tenth of this. There is much more money available to the private sector for research than there is from the federal govt. Lest you forget the true scale of spending.

keith

Posted by: keith at October 31, 2006 12:45 PM

Doesn’t matter LawnBoy.
Clone a cell or clone a person, big deal. Both can lead to medical discoveries which would benefit all of us.
I’m just a little lost as to why so many people fear this would lead to cloning people.
I think people watch too many movies.

Posted by: kctim at October 31, 2006 12:49 PM

Many of the replies have pretty much said what I wanted to say to Dana’s post. Dana basically got everything wrong from the nature of the scientific research on down.

One thing not mentioned yet is the nonsense about Ben Cardin voting against stem cell research. Cardin voted FOR the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which Bush vetoed. Cardin voted against the Republican bill which prohibits the use of embryonic stem cells, thereby ending the possibility of research in that area. So Dana, Cardin’s record is 100% in favor of embyronic stem cell research.

I take serious issue with your characterization of Fox and Cardin “playing on the hopes and fears.” The Scientists doing the research on embryonic stem cells are in near-universal agreement that the work is an extremely promising avenue of research that can lead to cures for many different illnesses. That is because the nature of the differences between embyronic and adult stem cells. They are careful to point out that you have to know the difference between the two.

But at no time have the scientists, nor Fox, nor Cardin promised anything. Fox and Cardin have taken the time to listen to the scientific community and understand what they are telling them. Apparently, you have not.

I conclude by noting that the heart of your post is nothing but opposition to abortion in any form. I wish you would just stick with that and not spread lies about the science.

Posted by: Steve K at October 31, 2006 12:50 PM

You missed one of the points. Maybe there isn’t enough private funding because the research doesn’t have as high a potential as some might think.

Are you asking the question honestly? If so, the answer is “No, that’s not it”. Take a look at the list of supporters of the amendment. The reason there are so many important non-profit medical groups supporting the amendment and this research is precisely because there is great potential.

There is also some private funding available, just as there is private funding for all medical research. However, there’s not really a good argument for why this research must rely solely on the smaller pool of private funding when other basic medical research doesn’t need to.

There is much more money available to the private sector for research than there is from the federal govt. Lest you forget the true scale of spending.

In the general economy, you’re right, there are trillions of dollars. That’s a red herring, though. In the realm of basic medical research, government funding dominates.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 12:52 PM

LawnmowerMan….

OK. If MJF believes that the ammendment should be passed, why not simply state that? That issue is up for vote by the CITIZENS of Missouri.

Instead of attempting to convince the public of the potential benefits that ammendment could produce for the public, MJF injects himself into a political arena that he does not belong in. MJF, although he has the right to speak his mind, has no real business telling the citizens of Missouri who to vote for….especially since he is not a resident of Missouri.

The candidate he endorses has no more say in the passing of that ammendment than does the candidate he opposes. Regardless of if the ammendment is passed or not by the Missouri voters, there is nothing that either candidate could do to change that, if elected.

If MJF would have stuck to a discussion of the merits of the ammendment, there would have been no dust-up. The problem comes when he attempts to vilify a particular candidate based on party affiliation. I say “party affiliation” because it is clear that he is politicizing the issue. MJF still endorses Ben Cardin over Michael Steele, even though Cardin is on the record as being opposed to ESCR. He is not “supporting candidates who favor ESCR”, he is simply supporting members of the Democratic Party.

Although I am empathetic for his medical condition, I am increasingly disgusted by the elitists on Hollywood who think they can tell me how to vote and/or live my life. They are ACTORS…nothing more. They make their living PRETENDING to be other people.

Posted by: Rich at October 31, 2006 12:57 PM

Dana,

There is no Michael J Fox “controversy”. There are simply two men with diseases. One has Parkinsons and the other is an addict. If you want to debate embryonic stem cell research then please stick with the truth. Not punditry garbage, which is full of lies and half truths. I haven’t read the thread but seeing lawnboys name above this post, I’m sure he showed the “where the lies are”

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 31, 2006 12:58 PM

Rich-

Do Kurt Warner, Jeff Suppan, Jim (I played Jesus, so listen to me!) Caviezel, or Patricia Heaton have any greater expertise than MIcahel J. Fox? Quite the opposite, really. Considering the amount of time and effort MJF has focused on this one cause, I tend to believe he knows more about it than most people who are arguing its merits.

Posted by: David S at October 31, 2006 01:04 PM

rich said “Instead of attempting to convince the public of the potential benefits that ammendment could produce for the public, MJF injects himself into a political arena that he does not belong in”

Since when does a citizen of this nation not “belong in” a political debate? If you really feel that way, doesn’t it make sense that no money should be allowed to be spent in a state where the contribution did not come from? Doesn’t that mean if you’re not from MS then YOU should shut up and stay out of it?

BTW: Didn’t your Ronnie start off as a co-star with a monkey? I’m pretty sure he was “pretending for a living”

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 31, 2006 01:04 PM

I’ve a question for the pro-lifers, and other on here. For years we have been lectured by the pro-life community that “Life begins at conception”. Without debating that specific point, where in the Somatic Nuclear Cell Transfer (SCNT) process does conception take place? From my understnding, there is no conception, no fertilization. Just a transfer of genetic material to an unfertilized egg that has its genetic material removed. In essense, only 1 set of genetic material is used. This is fact. So how can SCNT produce life, if life only begins at conception? This has always bothered me about the whole cloning debate. I believe tht the pro-life community also believes that a “soul” (whatever that means) enters the embryo at conception. Since SCNT involves no conception, when would the “soul” enter?

Posted by: SteveK at October 31, 2006 01:09 PM

MJF, although he has the right to speak his mind, has no real business telling the citizens of Missouri who to vote for…especially since he is not a resident of Missouri.

I see your point, but I disagree. Do you believe that Bush has no right to go to campaign rallys throughout the country supporting Republican candidates? I think he does. Do you think that non-Missouri residents like Patricia Heaton, Jim Caviezal, and Kurt Warner have the right to do ads opposing the amendment based on their religious beliefs? I think they do.

MJF is in a unique position as the visible spokesman for the Parkinsons’ patients. He provides a unique perspective that is worth hearing whether I live in his voting district or not.

You’re right that there is confusion here; his ad explicitly supports McCaskil because of her support for ESCR, but the response ad by Suppan, etc. was explicitly opposing the amendment instead of the candidate. There are two issues here that get conflated and confused.

I don’t know why MJF’s ad was specifically for the candidate and not the amendment - you’d have to ask him and her and the other people involved. However, it doesn’t bother me.

The candidate he endorses has no more say in the passing of that ammendment than does the candidate he opposes.

He didn’t address the amendment in the ad. He addressed Talent’s voting record in the Senate. I believe his ad is based on the idea of getting a better Senator for the issue he cares deeply about.

Are you seriously mad at him for not discussing the amendment in an ad that’s not about the amendment? That’s strange logic.

The problem comes when he attempts to vilify a particular candidate based on party affiliation.I say “party affiliation” because it is clear that he is politicizing the issue.

You are wrong, but you are definitely parroting the anti-MJF spin here. He has campaigned for Republicans in the past on the Stem Cell issue (Republican Senator Arlen Specter in particular).

You and Dana claim that Cardin has opposed ESCR, but Steve K say that’s not true. I don’t know.

I am increasingly disgusted by the elitists on Hollywood who think they can tell me how to vote and/or live my life.

So, you’re equally mad at Patricia Heaton and Jim Caviezal, right? Otherwise, you’re just politicizing the issue.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 01:12 PM

I haven’t read the thread but seeing lawnboys name above this post, I’m sure he showed the “where the lies are”

:)

Thanks for the vote of confidence

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 01:13 PM

The problem comes when he attempts to vilify a particular candidate based on party affiliation. I say “party affiliation” because it is clear that he is politicizing the issue. MJF still endorses Ben Cardin over Michael Steele, even though Cardin is on the record as being opposed to ESCR. He is not “supporting candidates who favor ESCR”, he is simply supporting members of the Democratic Party.

Rich, what a batch of lies.

Cardin is absolutely NOT “on the record as being opposed to ESCR”. Quite the opposite.

And as has been previously stated, Michael J. Fox has campaigned for Republican candidates who support ESCR. So how is that being politically biased?

Posted by: Burt at October 31, 2006 01:16 PM

I dont want taxpayer money going for this.
When some scientist wins a Nobel Prize or like, do you think he/she will pay it back?

Posted by: Tricia at October 31, 2006 01:17 PM

You should get your science from biologists, not religious fundamentalists, they have a better idea of where cures may come.

This is nothing more than you shoving your God up our asses.

Posted by: The Lindburg Baby at October 31, 2006 01:23 PM

Keith,

“BTW, we live in a 30+ trillion dollar economy. Our federal spending is less than a tenth of this. “

Do you have a source for this? Just wondering.

Posted by: jrb at October 31, 2006 01:26 PM

kctim,

I’m not ignoring you; I don’t have a good answer for you. Perhaps those so upset with Amendment 2 can provide an answer.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 01:27 PM

I understand LawnBoy, I wasn’t taking it that way. Its more of a morality question I guess. Probably shouldn’t have brought it up until a post on cloning comes along.
It was just bugging me.

Interesting posts to LB.

With regards to MJF, stem cells and Rush: who cares?
MJ should be free to say what he wishes and support who and what he wants AND Rush should be too.
There’s truth and distortions coming from both sides of the issue.

Just more of the same old same old, do anything to get votes.

Posted by: kctim at October 31, 2006 01:37 PM

Keith,

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the US Department of Commerce are responsible for calculating and reporting government consumption expenditures and gross investment [Government spending not including transfer payments]. These figures are reported quarterly. By their calculations the government is spending over $2.5 trillion per quarter [10 trillion per year]. This would be a third of the US economy if, in fact, we have a $30 trillion economy [I haven’t checked].

I’m just wondering if you have a different source.

Posted by: jrb at October 31, 2006 01:39 PM

Wow. What a hot button issue. It certainly hits my hot button.

Some thoughts that will hopefully get people to think differently:

First, I’m willing to agree that an 8-cell embryo is human and it is living. So, I guess it’s a human life. I don’t know what else to call it.

Organ donation. Think of stem cell research as organ donation. The “person” is going to die anyway. I have the right to donate my body to science and/or donate my organs to save another person’s life, right? It’s a good thing if I’m going to die anyway. Are you conservatives against organ donation?

Iraq War. Before the war started we faced a decision to spend federal dollars on an operation that had “potential” to save lives, American lives at least, but required the destruction of human life to achieve this goal. Were you against the war at that time? How about now. Every day our leadership decides to spend federal dollars to keep our troops in Iraq to fight the insurgency (which necessarily means destroying human life) because in the long run they believe it might save lives. Oh, and with all we’ve spent on the war and all the human lives that were destroyed, this has “produced nothing, not one single cure or treatment.” In fact, a bi-partisan report has said the the war has made us less-safe. So, do you support pulling out of Iraq?

Death Penalty. Do you support the death penalty? It destroys human life. And it doesn’t have any promise to save any lives since it’s been proven over and over that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent.

I confess that the last 2 are really just pointing out the hypocrisy of conservatives. But hopefully some of you can start thinking about this research as organ donation or “donating your body to science.”

So, I support this research. And I wonder why it is apposed by people who are willing to go to war and to send people to the gas chamber. But I realize that for conservatives this issue isn’t about science or the fear of scientists cloning and making monsters or honoring the sanctity of human life - it is about abortion. They are afraid that if we are allowed to play with embryos, it’s sends a message that a fertilized egg has no rights as a person. They just won’t come out and say it.

Posted by: Jeff at October 31, 2006 01:46 PM

The US GDP (the common measure of the size of a national economy, I believe) was estimated to be $12.41 trillion in 2005.

Another source

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 01:47 PM

Jeff:

Interesting comments.

I also find it interesting that the opponents of abortion also support pharmacists refusing to sell prescribed birth control.

It’s not just about abortion, it’s about regulating morality, i.e. who can have sex, when and how.

This all goes so much deeper.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?

Posted by: womanmarine at October 31, 2006 01:54 PM

SteveK wrote:
I’ve a question for the pro-lifers …

This is not my post. There’s another “Steve K” out there

Steve K

Posted by: Steve K at October 31, 2006 01:55 PM

Schwamp -
“We’ve had enough of you no good college brainwashed liberals.”
David S -
“I am so sick and tired of right-wing nutjobs dragging us down with their crap…”
L Baby -
“This is nothing more than you shoving your God up our asses.”

Please, do away with the name-calling. On the issue, was MJFox’s statements in the ads true or false. In one ad he made several statements which were blatently misleading or outright false. That is the issue for me about the ads.

On the research there should be 1) Limits on what kind of research is funded by the Federal Government, and 2) limits on the types of research allowed. They are separate issues.

I believe the Federal Government should not be in the business of funding embryonic research. There are some moral issues which make it objectionable to a large number of citizens (some are Christian, some are Jewish, some are not religious at all). This does not make this research illegal.

I believe there are some types of research which should be illegal. Human cloning, for example, should not be allowed because of the risk of creating people for the purpose of harvesting organs. (Does anyone really believe this would be OK?)

Stem cells have great promise. Cures and treatments will be found. But turning this into a political issue for supporting candidates will only make this issue a divisive one. I have trouble believing that is what MJFox really wants.

Posted by: Don at October 31, 2006 02:08 PM

Jeff
“And I wonder why it is apposed by people who are willing to go to war and to send people to the gas chamber”

Thats to easy Jeff.
A convicted murderer had a choice and chose to murder.
An infant however, had no choice and did nothing wrong.

One could also ask why the left believes the guilty should live but the innocent should die.

OR, as womanmarine has already said: “it’s about regulating morality.”
Like, who should care for the poor, when and how.

Now, I too must confess that the last 2 are really just pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals:)

Posted by: kctim at October 31, 2006 02:12 PM

You and Dana claim that Cardin has opposed ESCR, but Steve K say that is not true. I don’t know.

First, here is the link to the House roll call vote on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll388.xml

Second, here is the link to the Steele for Senate web page which claims Cardin voted against stem cell research.

http://www.steeleformaryland.com/SETTINGTHERECORDSTRAIGHTCardinVotedAgainstStemCellResearchforPurePoliticalGain.htm

You need to read the details on the Steele page. Even though the title reads “Cardin Voted Against Stem Cell Research for Pure Political Gain,” deeper down, when you get to the facts, it refers to legislation on “Alternate Stem Cell Research Methods” that “that do not destroy human embryos …”

Any scientist that is knowledgeable in the field will tell you that the limitation defeats the purpose of using embryonic stem cells, just like saying do your work on adult stem cells but not embryonic stem cells.

Steele write “I am an enthusiastic supporter … adult stem cell and embryonic stem cell research that does not destroy the embryo.” Well, sorry Mike Steele, but that means you are against genuine research in the field. You cannot do the research and then tie the hands of the researchers this way. It is a dishonest approach and, Dana, you have bought it.

Dana, please post the facts you know about the difference between adult and embryonic stem cell research, will you?

Posted by: Steve K at October 31, 2006 02:13 PM

In one ad he made several statements which were blatently misleading or outright false.

Really? What? I can’t think of anything he said that isn’t true (at least for the Missouri version of the ad - I haven’t seen the other).

Human cloning, for example, should not be allowed because of the risk of creating people for the purpose of harvesting organs. (Does anyone really believe this would be OK?)

If your only objection is due to the risk of organ farming, couldn’t the law handle that? If the penalties were sufficiently severe for that use of cloning, would you have a reason to oppose cloning still?

Stem cells have great promise. Cures and treatments will be found. But turning this into a political issue for supporting candidates will only make this issue a divisive one.

Well, it is an issue discussed in legislation, so by necessity it’s a political issue. Do you see another way?

I have trouble believing that is what MJFox really wants.

What do you think he really wants? I think his incentive for finding a cure to the disease that causes his such trouble is sufficient motivation that I don’t need to invent or look for others.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 02:19 PM

Dana:

You and Michael J. Fox disagree on the need or desire for embryonic stem cell research. OK, that’s fine, many people disagree on this subject.

However, you have no right to question his sincerity, nor the sincerity of others who advocate embryonic stem cell research.

We’re not talking here about facts. We’re talking about research. Fox believes that the research he favors may bring cures to his disease and to other suffering indiiduals.

You don’t agree we should do this. But, this research is a public good.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at October 31, 2006 02:24 PM

Jeff -

“Death Penalty.”

You haven’t studied this issue much, have you? First, as you may know, not all conservatives are in favor of the death penalty.

Second, those who are for it make a clear distinction between punishment for a crime vs. murder of an innocent. You wouldn’t put a baby in prison just for being born, but you would sentence a criminal to prison time. Why? ONE IS GUILTY OF CRIME. (Duh!) The death penalty is A PENALTY (not a deterrant) awarded to a criminal AS A PENALTY FOR THE CRIME HE HAS DONE. Please compare that to Abortion. “One of these things is not like the others…”

Think it through. I believe you will agree they are totally different issues.

Posted by: Don at October 31, 2006 02:27 PM

Stem cells have great promise. Cures and treatments will be found. But turning this into a political issue for supporting candidates will only make this issue a divisive one. I have trouble believing that is what MJFox really wants.

First, there is no guarantee that cures and treatments will be found. But the research is promising. That is a critical difference.

Second, you are right to complain about the politics. But it began when the anti-abortion crowd took a promising area of medical research and started telling lies about the science.

If the anti-abortion supporters want to oppose ESCR for the same reasons they oppose first trimester abortions, that’s a legitimate debate we can have.

But don’t lie about the science. Do not paint a picture to the public that adult stems cells already show promise, so use them instead of embryonic stem cells. The two are different and include that in the facts you present. Do not attack a brand new field of science because it has not produced anything. It has not produced anything because it is brand new.

When conservatives are honest with the facts on ESCR I will stop calling them liars. I will call candidates who lie about science, like Steele, bald-faced liars to their face on this one. They are being 100% dishonest. MJF has every right to weigh in on this issue,because people like Steele are spreading these lies for the purpose of trying to win votes. What is sad about that is Steele and the other liars will allow the suffering of people like MJF to continue because their lies generate votes.

Posted by: Steve K at October 31, 2006 02:27 PM

Lawnboy -
“If your only objection is due to the risk of organ farming, couldn’t the law handle that? If the penalties were sufficiently severe for that use of cloning, would you have a reason to oppose cloning still?”

Tell me, what uses are there for human cloning? There are only two uses I can think of (there may be more) 1) harvesting organs, 2) choosing your child (maybe replacing a child who died). Neither sound worthy.

I said, “I have trouble believing that is what MJFox really wants.”

What I meant was that I believe MJFox should want research that will find cures/treatments. I don’t see the value in using stem cell research as a divisive issue among candidates. That he moved beyond ads for the support of State Funding into the arena of candidate support is a dangerous one. Wouldn’t it be better to lobby BOTH sides of the aisle, than to put all your hopes for finding a cure into the basket of one party?

Posted by: Don at October 31, 2006 02:38 PM

It appears that there is an anti-Parkinsons disease mentality rather than the issue of embryonic stem cell research. There needs to be a separation of principle.

John Edwards promised that Chris Reeves would stand up out of his wheelchair on his own if embryonic stem cell research was financied by the federal government. That was pure dung.

What potential is looked at when ESCR is brought up? Hope is the only thing. Hope is when all else fails.

Posted by: tomh at October 31, 2006 02:39 PM

Don,

As already mentioned above, MJF did support candidates on BOTH sides of the aisle who support ESCR. Also, If you are talking about organ/limb cloning as oposed to whole Human cloning, maybe one good application would be to replace some of the limbs/parts blown off our soldiers in Iraq.

Posted by: jrb at October 31, 2006 02:47 PM

Tell me, what uses are there for human cloning?

I don’t know.

What I meant was that I believe MJFox should want research that will find cures/treatments.

Isn’t that what he wants? I’m sure that he’d prefer to simply be raising money for research, etc., but when politicians are putting up roadblocks to research he finds promising, what choice does he have?

Wouldn’t it be better to lobby BOTH sides of the aisle, than to put all your hopes for finding a cure into the basket of one party?

As we’ve pointed out repeatedly, that’s not what he’s doing. He campaigns on the issue, not on the party. He campaigned for the Republican Senator Arlen Specter because of Specter’s support for the issue.

It’s not MJF’s fault that others have made a political issue out of research that could help him.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 02:48 PM

tomh,

John Edwards promised that Chris Reeves would stand up out of his wheelchair on his own if embryonic stem cell research was financied by the federal government. That was pure dung.

I don’t remember the specifics of that speech, but yes, Edwards over-promised. That doesn’t mean the issue as a whole is dung.

What potential is looked at when ESCR is brought up? Hope is the only thing. Hope is when all else fails.

No, it’s not just hope. It’s the pluripotency of the different types of stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have much higher pluripotency than adult stem cells do - there’s much more they could do if we could figure out how to use them, and that will require research.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 02:52 PM

For those of you that think this is not about cloning… you better read the fine print.

(1) “Blastocyst” means a small mass of cells that results from cell division, caused either by
fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer, that has not been implanted in a uterus.

—somatic cell nuclear transfer is the same process they used to clone Dolly the sheep.

(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

— So you can fertalize or clone all the eggs you want (ie create life) as long as you do not implant it in a uterus with the intent of creating a “human fetus”.

Posted by: Daddy0f4 at October 31, 2006 03:17 PM

Research on embryonic stem cells has been active for a number of years. There is no progress; not even close.

BTW, on cloning. God forbid someone clone a Pelosi, Kerry. Chavez. Abinajerk, Kim Jung, a pedophile, a rapist, etc. There will certainly be somebody on the scene to replicate one of the above or others. I personally would not want to cloned. As much as I respect Billy Graham, I would not appreciate him being cloned. Cloning is playing God. There is only one GOD. Man in all his imperfections would do a terrible job of trying to immitate GOD.

Posted by: tomh at October 31, 2006 03:21 PM

Research on embryonic stem cells has been active for a number of years. There is no progress; not even close.

tomh,

I’m sorry that, once again, you insist that your scientific knowledge is better than those that are experts in the field.

There has been progress. I don’t know why you deny it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 03:32 PM

Daddy0f4,

So what? While SCNT can be used to clone sheep or people, such use is strictly forbidden by the amendment, and there are other uses of SCNT that don’t create new people.

The amendment allows cloning cells, but not cloning people. You obviously think that cloning an individual cell creates a life, but it’s not a human life in any traditional sense.

It’s about creating cells that can be used to save lives - it’s not about destroying lives.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 03:35 PM

The problem is until someone to include the Ole Mighty Rush Limbaugh walks in Fox’s shoes or anyone else who has a disease like MS, Parkinson, ALS, then no one has the right to say what is or isn’t right.
I had a father who was a diabetic for 25yrs, and died from problems it caused. If stem cell research would possibly help in a cure of it, I am all for it.
Problem with Rush is he a drug addict, and always will be one. This is something he did himself, no one to blame but himself. That is a lot different then having something done to your body that you have no control over.
KT

Posted by: KT at October 31, 2006 03:42 PM

LawnBoy.. your definition of “people” and mine are different and it appears we will not agree on that definition. That is the basis for the problem. Invetro fertilization of a human egg and human sperm (IMO) creates life…not a clump of cells. Now add to that, that I am unwilling to support having my (and yes they are mine) Missouri State taxes funding this destruction of life.

Posted by: Daddy0f4 at October 31, 2006 03:42 PM

Research on embryonic stem cells has been active for a number of years. There is no progress; not even close.

Thank you, Lawnboy, for pointing out tomh’s false claims. By his logic, Jonas Salk should never have stepped foot in a laboratory.

Dana has been suscpisouly quiet since this post went up. But then, with a comment like “Michael J. Fox and Ben Cardin are misleading the public” she should be. Her lack of knowledge on the science front shows that she is the one who is misleading.

Posted by: Steve K at October 31, 2006 03:43 PM

LawnBoy.. your definition of “people” and mine are different and it appears we will not agree on that definition.

You’re right. I don’t consider an undifferentiated mass of a few cells (that in different contexts would be flushed from the womb unnoticed or thrown away by a clinic due to not having a further use) to be a life more important than living, breathing people.

Do you consider IVF murder since only about 25% (at best) of the blastocysts created implant in the womb?

Now add to that, that I am unwilling to support having my (and yes they are mine) Missouri State taxes funding this destruction of life.

Well, the amendment says nothing at all about using our taxes (I’m in Missouri, too) for research.

All it says is that future legislative efforst cannot prevent Missouri researchers from doing research and Missouri patients from benefiting from cures. There’s nothing about taxes.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 03:47 PM

Oh god,forgive me for the killing of millions of human beings when I have wet dreams.

What a complete and utter load of crap.

Posted by: gergle at October 31, 2006 03:50 PM

LB..
Like I said, you and I will probably never agree on what (we believe) is life.

| Do you consider IVF murder since only about 25%
| (at best) of the blastocysts created implant in
| the womb?

Actually no ..I look at this as would be parents trying to increase their chances of having a child.

|Well, the amendment says nothing at all about |using our taxes (I’m in Missouri, too) for |research.

|All it says is that future legislative efforst
|cannot prevent Missouri researchers from doing
|research and Missouri patients from benefiting
|from cures. There’s nothing about taxes.

You should read the ammendment…

http://www.missouricures.com/documents/Initiative.pdf

Section 5
5. To ensure that no governmental body or official arbitrarily restricts funds designated for purposes other than stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures as a means of inhibiting lawful stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures, no state or local governmental body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny, or withhold any public funds provided or eligible to be provided to a person that (i) lawfully conducts stem cell research or provides stem cell therapies and cures, allows for such research or therapies and cures to be conducted or provided on its premises, or is otherwise associated with such research or therapies and cures, but (ii) receives or is eligible to receive such public funds for purposes other than such stem cell-related activities, on account of, or otherwise for the purpose of creating disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with, or preventing, restricting, obstructing, or discouraging, such stem cell-related activities.

Posted by: Daddy0f4 at October 31, 2006 04:00 PM

Daddy0f4,

I have read the amendment.

This section you quoted just says that no official can illegally arbitrarily restrict public funds that are supposed to go to research. It doesn’t allocate funds for research at all, which is what I was saying.

So yeah, it does mention taxes, so I was wrong, but since it doesn’t allocate taxes or require the allocation of taxes, I don’t think you’ve proven your initial point.

Do you consider IVF murder…?

Actually no ..I look at this as would be parents trying to increase their chances of having a child.

So, if you approve of IVF clinics, what do you think we should do with the created blastocysts (400,000 so far) that will never be implanted? Should we make use of them to support potential life-saving cures? Or is it morally superior somehow to throw them away?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 04:11 PM

Micheal Fox doesn’t even know what he was supporting as he admitted. He hasn’t read the Bill but found he should campaign for it because it might hold a cure. Well it is legal to have stem cell research not just indiscriminate killing of human embryo. Well I know why he is for it as the dims do the same thing wanting abortion on demand. no diff.

Them dims remind me of their leader the swimmer, he walks into a bar where the sign says ” all you can drink for $1.” teddy bear shouts out in his indignant manner, ” give me $2 worth.” as he dog paddles out of sight on his way back to his home.

Stem cell like other issues of importance have left the dims in the dark like north korea on a clear night. did i mention they are as solid as a soup sandwich. what a bunch of das.

Posted by: lm at October 31, 2006 04:20 PM

David S,

NO…you may NOT seceed for 20 years. Refer to the 14th Amendment.

Tricia,

EXACTLY! That is the whole point here.

When MJF refers to “expanding” stem cell research, he is saying that the government needs to fund it…instead of private firms.

What everyone fails to acknowledge is…once the government gives MY money to the drug companies, they DON’T give it back. It doesn’t matter that they invent cures that reaps billions and billions of dollars in profit. MY money is gone and I won’t be getting it back. The drug companies will put those billions of dollars in their pockets and the only thing they will give the American taxpayer (ME) is the middle finger.

So let’s review:

1.) “Expand” research means taxpayer’s dollars.

2.) Drug companies get billions from cures…we get middle finger.

3.) Taxpayer’s dollars = Corporate Welfare.

Aren’t you all against Corporate Welfare from the government?

If the Drug companies are going to keep the profits, then they should do the research with THEIR dollars.

The government has NO BUSINESS giving our dollars to private mega-corporations who are very capable of doing their own research with their own dollars.

Period.

Posted by: Jim T at October 31, 2006 04:22 PM

So, Jim T,

Are you saying that you oppose all government funding of scientific and medical research? Or are you just opposed to this specific research?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 04:28 PM

It doesn’t matter that they invent cures that reaps billions and billions of dollars in profit. MY money is gone and I won’t be getting it back.

Until the day the doctor informs you that you have an illness that used to be fatal, but now can be treated and cured. Then you will be damned happy your money was spent when it was, because not only do you get to keep earning money, far more importantly, you get to keep living.

Posted by: Steve K at October 31, 2006 04:33 PM

I feel terrible for MJF. I loved his movies and feel it is just plain awful that he has to suffer so much when he has brought so much joy to so many people through his work as an entertainer.

MJF has a right - and perhaps a duty - to exercise his right as an American citizen to throw his hat into the political ring. But he should neither seek nor accept special treatment because of his status as a beloved entertainer. What Rush said was pretty harsh, but certainly no more so than what was said about Rush when it was revealed that he was going deaf. And look at the horrible, despicable comments about President Bush and practically every member of his Administration that are the comments du jour of late night pseudo-news comedy programs like Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show,” HBO’s “Real Time,” the now-defunct “Air America,” and non-conservative blogs everywhere.

No one twisted MJF’s arm to participate in the ad. Well, I don’t really know that for sure. It’s possible that MJF may have been mainpulated into making the ad that everyone is debating about here. But I doubt it.

One thing that bothers me about this is the timing of the ad. Would we be having this debate it MJF had waited until after the midterm elections to air the ad? I doubt it. The ad was aired to influence the outcome of the midterm elections. Nothing wrong with that. But some of the things MJF said need clarification at the very least, and perhaps even a complete retraction. Either way, the damage (however slight or serious) is already done and probably cannot be undone. Not before the election, in any case.

I read with interest the mini-debate going on here about the origin of life. Is a clump of cells “life,” or not? You are whistling past the graveyard of humanity when you argue for a minimum number of cells required to make a life human. To argue that “… the cells are going to be disposed of anyway, why not use them?” is eerily fascistic, don’t you think? Not everything evil has its origins in Hitler’s Germany, but this kind of research makes me think of the “research” conducted by Nazi scientists during WW II. Simply put, the ends do not justify the means. It wouldn’t matter if the Nazis had found a cure for cancer, AIDs, and the common cold. It would still have been wrong.

I know, I know. It’s not the same thing, our scientists are not Nazis. Please don’t misunderstand or misrepresent what I’m trying to lay out here. I just think that this kind of research has at least as much potential for doing great harm as it does for doing good. It would be prudent to proceed with this kind of research in a very careful and deliberate fashion, always with consideration to the critical review of future history.

How do we wish to be remembered? Does the potential for good with ESCR outweigh the potential for evil? Is there such a thing as “bad” science?

Posted by: Chris at October 31, 2006 04:40 PM

If Embryonic stem cell research is murder, then why are you permitting private research, much less in vitro fertilization? if it’s not, why are you blocking Federally funded research? If embryos are to be destroyed, why not destroy them in a way that allows other to be healed?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2006 04:48 PM

KT
The arguement is ebroynic stem cell research or just stem cell research. Nobody is against adult stem cell research and all that it has accomplished.

Steve K
Jonas Salk did not do embroynic stem cell research. Research is research. Maybe you that are for embryonic stem cell research would like to add aborted babies to your pro research list.

Posted by: tomh at October 31, 2006 04:53 PM

Okay! I’ve come to a conclusion: Democrats and Liberals call me names when they can’t argue the facts. They accuse me of lying and producing false information when in fact, all of the statements in my article are true! The funniest part of this is the ones who oppose me fail to see the irony and instead attack the messenger (me) instead of argueing the facts (the truths you see above.

There are a few of you “lefties” who think that embryos are a cluster of cells. Nothing more than cells. If I follow your logic, than I can can commit murder (perhaps I’ll kill Ted Kennedy) and I can get away with it, because after all, he’s just a bunch of cells. Drunk cells mind you. Correct???????

Those of you who are pro-life, thank you so much for posting. You’re support means the world to me and to all those little “clusters of cells” that the lefties want to destroy in the name of “potential” (read: non-existent, never gonna happen) cures.

Adult stem cell research has MORE potential because it has proven itself with more than 30 cures. Gee…Skippy…I think that’s progress.

Posted by: Dana J. Tuszke at October 31, 2006 04:53 PM

But some of the things MJF said need clarification at the very least, and perhaps even a complete retraction.

Could you please clarify? Someone else said something along these lines but didn’t elaborate. What did MJF say that you think it inaccurate?

Also, Air America is in bankruptcy, but not defunct.

To argue that “…the cells are going to be disposed of anyway, why not use them?” is eerily fascistic, don’t you think?

Since this is at least partially aimed at me, I’ll respond.

No, I don’t think so, on two levels.

1) Merriam-Webster defines fascism as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”. The term doesn’t really apply here. I know you’re actually trying to link this to the bad science of Mengele, etc., but I’m just being precise.
2) No one has really answered the question of what we should do with the 400,000 unused blastocysts otherwise. These are cells that will be destroyed legally and ethically if they are not used for research. There’s no reasonable comparison to the Jews and other groups that were experimented on as part of their unconscionable slaughter.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 04:55 PM

JimT:

Very good point. It is not against the law for private corporations to fund their own ESCR. But don’t universities that rely on federal funding for their day-to-day operations run the risk of having those funds revoked if they seek ESCR on their own?

It would help if there was some tangible benefit to ESCR that we could point to and say “See? Without ESCR we wouldn’t have a cure for ________.” But we don’t have a tangible benefit yet. We have promises for possible benefits that may or may not come in our lifetimes.

Posted by: Chris at October 31, 2006 05:03 PM

Okay! I’ve come to a conclusion: Democrats and Liberals call me names when they can’t argue the facts.

Please don’t resort to the victim card so easily. You’re calling us liars as well, so why are you the victim when we challenge you on your facts?

They accuse me of lying and producing false information when in fact, all of the statements in my article are true!

No. We’ve challenged the facts you presented. I challenged (with evidence) your characterization of the ads in question, others have challenged (with evidence) your claims about Cardin, and we’ve challenged your other claims, as well.

If you are right on the facts, you can rebut our challenges. Simply stating “but what I said is right!” doesn’t help your case at all.

The funniest part of this is the ones who oppose me fail to see the irony

There is nothing ironic about you supporting your claims that you’re right with the evidence of “I’m right”. It’s not irony; it’s tautology.

If I follow your logic, than I can can commit murder…and I can get away with it, because after all, he’s just a bunch of cells. Correct???????

Nope. We draw an obvious distinction between living humans and undifferentiated masses of a small number of cells. In no way does that description fit a living adult, no matter how much you hate him or his politics.

Please as least try to give a reasonable argument.

Adult stem cell research has MORE potential because it has proven itself with more than 30 cures.

There’s a difference between past success and future potential. Yes, there has been more success in the 40 years of adult stem cell research than there has been in 8 years of embryonic stem cell research. However, the inherent differences in the cell types mean that there is much more potential in the more pluripotent embryonic cells.

To give a sports analogy, who would you rather build a baseball team around now, Hank Aaron or Ryan Howard? The past results would say Hank Aaron, because he has hit almost 700 more home runs than Ryan Howard. However, Ryan Howard has much more potential, since he’s 26 years old instead of 72.

Saying Aaron’s past production proves more future potential would get you laughed out of any bar, just as your argument here will have the same reaction.

“potential” (read: non-existent, never gonna happen) cures.

Maybe that’s how you read the word “potential.” However, the experts that actually know what they are talking about read that word much differently.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 05:08 PM

Dana please don’t take this as a personal attack but I would like to clarify something for you.

Many cells together form a tissue, tissues together form an organ, organs form organ systems, and organ systems form an organism. Hence the difference between a blastocyst and an organism. Many organisms have central nervous systems and some even have a consciousness.

Hey Lawnboy, I’ve got an idea but its a bad one. Lets auction them.

Posted by: darren159 at October 31, 2006 05:21 PM

Democrats and Liberals call me names when they can’t argue the facts. They accuse me of lying and producing false information when in fact, all of the statements in my article are true!

Lie #1:

The ad campaign is repulsive because it’s dishonest in promising cures to these diseases

The ads never “promise” cures. In fact, MJF uses the word “hope” twice in the ad. How is that dishonest let alone repulsive? You can watch the ad for yourself here

Lie #2:

Instead of arguing the facts and admitting the truth behind Limbaugh’s statements

Limbaugh’s statement that MJF was pretending or “off his meds” was not the truth, and even he has admitted as such.

Posted by: Burt at October 31, 2006 05:28 PM

KCTIM wrote:

“Thats to easy Jeff.
A convicted murderer had a choice and chose to murder.
An infant however, had no choice and did nothing wrong.

One could also ask why the left believes the guilty should live but the innocent should die.”

And DON wrote:

“…not all conservatives are in favor of the death penalty.”

“Second, those who are for it make a clear distinction between punishment for a crime vs. murder of an innocent…The death penalty is A PENALTY (not a deterrant)”

Good points. I understand and respect your point of view. My thoughts:

My main problem here is that I hear a lot of conservatives talk about the sanctity of life and refer to the ten commandments. So it seems to me that if you truly believe that life is sacred, then all life should be sacred. And if you believe the 10 commandments are the words of God, you should notice that “Thou shalt not kill” is not followed by “unless they do something really bad.” OK, the death penalty is a punishment, but there are other punishments we can dish out without taking life.

I also noticed that neither of you defended the war in Iraq, where lots of INNOCENT lives have been lost. You know, people who had no choice and committed no crime. See how it seems inconsistent to me that those who oppose ESCR because “it destroys innocent human life”, defend and support wars like this?

KCTIM you ask “why the left believes the guilty should live but the innocent should die.” That’s unfair wording. Nobody “believes the innocent should die.” I don’t know anyone who wants the innocent to die. I don’t know anyone who encourages anyone to get an abortion. I hear the “pro-abortion” term used by the right a lot, but nobody is “pro-abortion.” My sense is that the Left (and the center too for that matter) wants to minimize abortions but without prohibition. Remember, alcohol consumption in the US INCREASED 11.6% the year after prohibition took effect because it pushed production underground and closer to the consumer which actually made it more available than before. So, from my perspective there are better ways to reach the goal of fewer abortions without criminalizing it.

Getting back to ESCR, I noticed neither of you commented on the notion that the parents of these soon to be destroyed embryos should be given the opportunity to “donate” their cells to science. I think it’s an interesting perspective that could help overcome the moral objections that are blocking the availability of federal funding.

Posted by: Jeff at October 31, 2006 05:32 PM

Dana,

Why should I trust Michael J. Fox or the star of Everybody Loves Raymond to tell me whether or not stem cell research is right? And why should I trust you to tell me what is and isn’t life?

Stem cell research isn’t in the Bible, so I rely on scientists. You don’t see it, but you’re just a puppet of politicians who have decided to make a campaign / wedge issue out of a form of research scientists and the rest of the world don’t consider controversial at all.

Posted by: Max at October 31, 2006 05:35 PM

Fascinating debate folks. This has to be one of the best series of posts on any topic for some time. Not the usual litany of name calling.

Also, I noticed that no pro-lifer ddressed my honest questions above about cloning and the beginning of life. Disappointing as I would really like to hear their side of that question.

Lawboy- you are my hero dude. You rock. And you;re from Missouri, like I. Excellent. Kudos to your excellent posts and responses, all done without name calling and other phony debating techniques so often seen on here. And for the record…I already voted FOR Amendment 2 absentee, cause I will be out of town next week. Oh, and also for Claire. :)

Posted by: SteveK at October 31, 2006 05:40 PM

no good college brainwashed liberal, lefties, Nazi scientists, playing God, drug addict, elitists on Hollywood, drunk mass of cells. MJF and Rush are both entitled to there opinions. The other side is not pure evil. We just want life to be treated respectfully. Mocking beliefs, illnesses, or intelligence is not respectful. If what you have to say is important, than the people you say it to are important as well.

Posted by: sassyathiest at October 31, 2006 05:43 PM

Lawnboy,

I am opposed to government funding (MY dollars) of corporations when private funding is available.

I am opposed to corporate welfare from our government when the company will reap the benefits and our government (the American taxpayer) gets shafted.

This is just a general statement. If the drug mega-companies agree to sign over any and all patents to the government to pay off the national debt, then I’m all for it. But really, do you think that will happen?

To have the government fund the “expansion” of anything that a private company (and only the private company) will profit from is wrong.

In the case of stem cell research, all we are doing is putting billions of dollars in the pockets of the drug companies and screwing ourselves.

Remember, drug companies are major corporations…and you’re giving a major cash windfall to big business.

If the big drug companies want to make billions of dollars off of stem cell research…THEY should fund it. Else, they should give those profits back to the American taxpayer.

Posted by: Jim T at October 31, 2006 05:47 PM

Republicans, in general, seem to oppose science and anything else reasonable for that matter. Why don’t you all just let your oppositions to these issues go? Be cool for once.

Posted by: Trent at October 31, 2006 05:55 PM

Jim T,

I understand and can respect that argument, but the scientific and medical success that our current model has had is something that I have a hard time arguing against.

I’m not directly in the scientific world that depends on government grants, so I’m not sure, but I believe that there are rules that say that the direct results of research funded through government grants must be in the public domain. If I’m correct, then your concerns don’t reflect reality - it’s not just corporate welfare.

Is there anyone that can verify or disprove my understanding?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 05:56 PM

In the case of stem cell research, all we are doing is putting billions of dollars in the pockets of the drug companies and screwing ourselves.

So, Jim T., I assume you are against the Republican prescription drug benefit.

Posted by: Burt at October 31, 2006 06:12 PM

Lawnboy-

You beat me to the punch. Government funded research related patents are owned by the government. Not sure what the restrictions are, if any, about assigning them to private companies. It would be licensee relationship at best.

Jim T-

Why are you worried about government funded research in this area? It works very well in other areas and tends to serve as a guiding light to the private sector to finance their own research often enough. They just have to be able to prove they’ll get a profit in order to get funding. That is a very different process, often more rigorous, from asking the government for funding based on the idea itself.

Government funding certain research for the benefit of the public trust stimulates the economy in targetted ways that pure economics just hasn’t been able to do. It has also proven to stimulate the economy. What is better? Giving people $1000 to go and spend on some chinese-made products while you allow billions of corperate tax and licensing dollars to go uncollected and those companies outsource operations overseas anyway…leaving millions to seek Wallmart employment? Or creating new avenues for businesses to explore so they can build research facilities and increase demand for educated professionals?

There is a line to be drawn on how to decide what to fund, but that is the role of elected officials, and they should be held more accountable for those types of decisions (ie. how to target the funding to only what is needed and cut waste). The private sector should be encouraged to take on as much R & D as they can stomach, but sometimes they really do need a kickstart that can only come from intentions other than profits.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 31, 2006 06:23 PM

Kevin23,

Thanks for the verification.

Yes, the amount of R&D funding by a government has a good correlation to the economic and scientific success a country has. Unfortunately, I don’t remember my source for that nugget, so take it for what it’s worth.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 06:28 PM

The author of this article failed to respond to Stephen Daugherty’s salient question about In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), just as most feigning outrage about Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) avoid the topic of IVF. They know that IVF is a popular procedure which will never be outlawed, so its role in supplying fertilized eggs for ESCR is conveniently ignored, as is the fact that ESCR cannot be honestly described as the procedure which destroys eggs which are headed for the waste basket anyway.

Confronted with this inconsistency, ESCR opponents will point to the fact that IVF is not government funded whereas ESCR. There is an existing market for IVF, whereas early research often relies on government funding. IVF is creating far more fertilized eggs than can ever reasonably be implanted and adopted. If you are outraged by this destruction, the outrage against ESCR is entirely misplaced.

As someone earlier pointed out, no great mourning occurs every time fertilized eggs do not implant in the uterus, so this outrage is all conjured out of nothing.

If someone starts a campaign against IVF, I would consider it silly, but at least it would be honest. The whole campaign against ESCR is both silly and dishonest.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at October 31, 2006 07:06 PM

If someone starts a campaign against IVF, I would consider it silly, but at least it would be honest.

Not just that, but the contraceptive pill, as well, which works through the dual function of reducing the chances of fertilization and reducing the chances of implantation.

There actually is one group that is consistent in these issues: the Roman Catholic Church. The official policy of Catholicism is to oppose IVF, ESCR, and contraception. Of course, very few American Catholics actually agree with the Vatican on this.

I strongly disagree with the Vatican on these issues, but I give them credit for consistency.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 07:21 PM

Many of the above use ESCR and SCR as if they are the same. Differentiate between the two when you are posting.

On the Biblical Ten Commandments and “thou shalt not kill”. The interpretation is to not take a life wantonly. When a person commits a crime and is issued a sentence of death, this is in accordance with Biblical teaching.

That good old word potential. Say I am at a casino in Vegas. I am at the roulette tabel. I say put a grand on #4. It does not hit, but it had potential. I choose another grand on #22. It did not hit, but sure had potential. And on it goes. All my bets had potential. In reality I probably after a period of time would have het one of those bets. That is the law of averages. ESCR has not had a hit in all these years. This is not the law of averages. It is potential and very poor potential. Some have said that there are so many more oportunities using ESCR which should increase the possibility of getting a “hit”. This has not happened. On the other hand, there have been numerous “hits” using adult stem cell research. How long or how much money or how much hope does one put in a deal going nowhere?

Posted by: tomh at October 31, 2006 09:24 PM

ESCR has not had a hit in all these years.

All these years? All these years? It’s only 8 years old!!! Biomedical research takes time, and 8 years for something as complex as this is not that long.

Your casino analogy really doesn’t work at all, because scientific progress isn’t a game of chance. It’s a slow, methodical improvement over time.

And such improvement and progress has been seen with ESCR, despite your denials.

How long or how much money or how much hope does one put in a deal going nowhere?

You’re trying to kill the research before it really starts. These things take time, and you do no one any good to pretend to know what you’re talking about here.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 09:32 PM

Dana-
Michael J. Fox made a commercial in which the reaction to the drug he takes to treat his neurological degenerative condition were painfully obvious, and did so in support of stem cell research. Rush Limbaugh gets on air and not only accuses him of dishonesty, of exaggerating his condition, but also mocks that condition physically.

Embryonic stem cell research deals in clumps of cells being destroyed. If by the Republican argument, that’s killing a human being, then several human beings are killed to make one in fertility treatments which Republicans have not criticized, nor will likely ever take a stance against.

If that is the position it can only be said to be inconsistent. If destroying an embryo is murder, then doing that to gain stem cells differs not at all from doing that as the waste product of In Vitro Fertilization, morally speaking.

If Republicans are unwilling to censure mothers who use IVF to conceive and let the embryos be destroyed, then there should be no censure for the use of those embryos, with the parent’s permission, for Stem Cell Research.

The facts remain that stem cells from adults are not as pluripotent, not as capable of forming all the different kinds of cells in the body. There has been some progress in teasing out different sources of those cells, but the limits generally remain.

We don’t know everything about stem cells, adult or Embryonic. Those presuming that Embryonic stem cells will not do anything much, forget that they do quite a bit at the beginning of our lives. They form every cell we’re born with. So to say they don’t have potential is to ignore the obvious fact that we exist. The question is whether we can use that potential. It’s a question that can’t be pre-emptively answered “no” with any credibility. Science doesn’t work that way.

Ted Kennedy, whatever his sins or virtues, is fully grown man, having been implanted in his mothers womb after the deaths of many other eggs and embryos. He is not just a clump of cells, he is a well organized being, with differentiated tissues and organs, and a brain capable of sustaining thought, emotion, and sensory perceptions. By comparison, the embryo, is just a clump of cells, not yet complex. Once that embryo is developed, life has begun its course, and I do not believe myself that it should be stopped except in cases of rape, incest, or medical necessity. But before that, it is merely a clump of cells, which on its own develops into nothing.

The Collapse of Chaos by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart, is an illuminating book on this subject, which reveals that development in the womb is first and largely guided by the mother’s genetic information. Only after a while does the child’s join in and give that individual’s stamp of development. The very important and intricately connected role of mother and child brings this debate to a new level of sophistication.

As for human cloning, allow me to say this. The likelihood is that the clone would resemble but not be an identical copy to the person, since environmental, and experiential conditions would be different. Similar tendencies in behavior and biology might pop up, but the likelihood would be that this would be a distinct person with a distinct soul.

This debate is anything but simple, and the stem cell debate as most Republicans argue it is contradictory and often ill informed. Rush Limbaugh’s performance adds a tacky new dimension to the issue, as we are confronted with the lack of inhibition that they demonstrating in making unfounded, unproven charges, and in failing utterly to respect the virtues of reasoned debate. They don’t debate to persuade, they debate to destroy and discredit their opposition.

You express your problems with being called names, yet defend a man who with no conclusive evidence on his side accused somebody of faking the symptoms associated with a terrible disease. Perhaps you’re taking the wrong approach somewhere here.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2006 09:42 PM

tomh-
What qualifies you in any technical sense to comment on the potential of such research? I’m willing to bet that you get most of your information on these matters from church or party outlets. Or do you perhaps have a better source?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2006 09:46 PM

Stephen Daugherty,

Very nicely said.

Thanks.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 09:49 PM

tomh,

When a person commits a crime and is issued a sentence of death, this is in accordance with Biblical teaching.

Really? I thought Jesus said turn the other cheek. What do I know?

Posted by: jrb at October 31, 2006 10:08 PM

Jeff -

“I also noticed that neither of you defended the war in Iraq…”

Pick the war you want, war is not like anything else. In wars people get killed and maimed. Many innocents have died throughout the centuries because of wars. It happened in WWII, in VietNam, in Korea, in WWI, in the Spanish-American War… Whether the war is justified or not innocents suffer. So what? This argument doesn’t deserve to be responded to, but since you insisted I have.

“I don’t know anyone who encourages anyone to get an abortion. I hear the ‘pro-abortion’ term used by the right a lot, but nobody is ‘pro-abortion.’”

You don’t get out much! There is a long list of organizations and individuals in the Democrat party who ENCOURAGE abortions. With statistics like these (“More than one-third of all U.S. women will have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old.” - Planned Parenthood) someone has to be pushing it. Think about it, (your mother, your sister, your wife) for every 3 women you know one of them has had an abortion by age 45. Doesn’t that make you a little uncomfortable about the rhetoric, “I’m personally opposed to it, but it is a woman’s choice.”? So, who is trying to reduce abortions? Not NARAL or Planned Parenthood. They are pushing for “reproductive freedom.” It is to their advantage, as organizations, to have MORE women who have “chosen” death for their babies, not less. And those organizations raise money to elect Senators and House members who support THEIR cause. Those they support are in favor of less restrictions on abortion, not more. On every other issue the Dems are “personally opposed to” the Dems try to make laws restricting funding, access, etc. Not here. So, wake up! If they didn’t want more abortions they’ll actually do something to reduce abortions. They haven’t even published a pamphlet asking women to not have abortions.

Posted by: Don at October 31, 2006 10:24 PM

Stephen D-
“Michael J. Fox made a commercial in which the reaction to the drug he takes to treat his neurological degenerative condition were painfully obvious, and did so in support of stem cell research.”

And your quote from Fox regarding this… As I understand it, Rush (who never apologizes for anything) offered to apologize if he was wrong. Fox never responded to Rush’s offer. Has Fox made a statement that he was not acting or off his medicine?

Posted by: Don at October 31, 2006 10:38 PM

Has Fox made a statement that he was not acting or off his medicine?

Yes

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 10:47 PM

Stephen D-
From Dana’s article: “Fox was later interviewed by Katie Couric, in which he says he wasn’t acting or off his medication.”

Sorry, I forgot what Dana wrote…long thread. But I’m guessing that Rush DID apologize??? You’d forgive him if he did, right?

Posted by: Don at October 31, 2006 10:49 PM

And Don, as far as I know, Rush hasn’t followed up on his offer to apologize. The last statement I know from Rush about the issue is “I stand by what I said. I take back none of what I said. I wouldn’t rephrase it any differently. It is what I believe; it is what I think. It is what I have found to be true.” [source]

Is there something more recent?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 10:50 PM

Has Fox made a statement that he was not acting or off his medicine?

Yes, Don. Of course h