Redstate

As this is the first official position of the site on a piece of legislation, let me state that I think we picked the wrong one.  If this site is to be one for all Republicans, we should not be taking official stances on intra-party fights.  Gay marriage, Roe v. Wade, tax cuts, and everything else that we generally agree on is one thing.  But why would you choose to pick something that divides us and take a side on it.

If this is to be a conservative site that fights intra-party wars for the conservatives, then change the mission statement.  As is, your using the RS name to promote a view that a third to a half of Republicans don't agree with.

That all being said, I think the President has made his position clear and I respect his perorgative to follow through on it.

And for what it is worth: I dissent.

Since its inception, the Republican Party has always embraced a wide range of ideological beliefs. This diversity of thought sometimes inspires conflict -- but it has also led to great achievement. Through all debates, despite all regional or political concerns, the central philosophy of every true strain of Republicanism remains faithful to the foundational principles of the party: individual freedom and the value of every human life.

On these two issues, RS takes an explicit position.  Always has.  Doesn't need changing.  You're welcome to be a dissenter, but this will not change.

Whether this is a human life.  That's what Congress spent the day debating.  That's what the party should be debating.  It's obvious that a nine-month fetus is a human life.  And it's just as obvious that a sperm is not.  The debate is about where it becomes a human life.  I'm glad the directors have that answer so every one else can go home.

I'm not a director, so nobody may care, but I agree with this. I'm still a bit squishy on the issue of whether stem cell research should be legal (while we're allowing viable fetuses to be thrown in the trash), but I'm dead set against paying for it, especially when the Pharms are going to reap the benefits, and have plenty of money for R&D set aside anyway.

Well, let me ask you the same question that I asked von (we're both fence sitters on this) - would you agree that the fundamental difference between an embryo and a fetus is that a fetus has been implanted on the uteran wall? And are you prepared to say that what distinguishes life from non-life is implantation on the uteran wall?

It is fully human.  It is fully alive.  It is just as human and alive as you were at that stage in life.

You may argue cost benefit if you would like - that's actually what they were debating today.

I don't know.  That's generally why I side with life.  However, it is much more difficult when other lives are at stake and when these fetuses will often be thrown away regardless.  It seems hopeless or pointless or both.

But my main objection is still to the site making this the first official position.  

The distinction you create is about as artificial as they come. So there are not, in fact, significant parts of the Party that favor abortion on demand (or at least, abortion through a certain point)? Who are not in fact gung ho over tax cuts? Who are giggly over gay marriage?

The pro-life plank was adopted when, let us be gentle about this, it was even less a consensus in the Party than it is now -- coming off of Ford's, ahem, Presidency no less. That we should shy from taking this position because a good chunk of the Party disagrees is simply ludicrous.

This is about the use of humans as property. Alpha and omega. The Party has stood against that since its inception.

This is right.

If these embryos weren't human, the researchers wouldn't want them.  It is their humanity that is of value.

I don't see that their humanity is even debatable.

The implantation argument you've used gives me an interestng thought. There is a distinction between an embryo that has implanted and one that is in a petri dish: If you take no action, the implanted embryo will become a baby, the one in the petri dish will not. In that respect, it may be equivilent to a sperm and an egg, if you take action, you can make a baby, otherwise, nothing will happen.

In the interests of fairness, I should say that I'm personally pro-choice up until viability, but I respect the beliefs of those who are not.

I think you're unfair to President Bush on this.  You've effectively moved the goal posts on him.  Suddenly it's not enough to be with you in the big fights, but he has to be 100% right on every obscure corner case.

He's fought abortion at every turn, right?  Unless I'm mistaken, Bush has kept federal funds away from supporting abortions, shifted federal funds toward abstinence education to thwart abortions, signed a bill to ban partial-birth abortions, and repeatedly used his bully pulpit to keep the concept of the 'culture of life' on the minds of Americans.  I'd say that in America he's done more to spread that concept than Karol Wojtyla did.

He's been so successful at that, that he's even created an opening for anti-Death Penalty activists to ride on his coattails.  That says a  lot, I think.

And even here, on the issue of government-funded embryonic stem-cell research, he's pretty much taken your side.  He's taken a hard line against all cloning, and he's used the power he has to keep government support out of it.

What do you want from him?  A government takeover of all scientific resesarch?

He's done a lot, and I think it's ridiculous that so many on the social right never seem to think it's enough.

"done more to spread that concept than Karol Wojtyla did"

Wow.  Please tell me what universe you're posting from.  It must have kickass pot.

How nice of you to Dowdify my quote by cutting off the words "in America," which were my whole point

President Bush, as President, reaches a wider audience in America than a Catholic leader does as Pope.

He's fought abortion at every turn, right?

He has?

these cells are "human" (adj) and of course these cells are "alive" (adj).  

The question is whether a "blastocyst" frozen at -200 degrees celsius, that will never be implanted into a woman's uterus is a "person" (noun).

And you know where I stand, but the idea of treating any class of humans as non-persons is something of which we all need to be more than slightly leery.

Although I think you were honest in how you described them in the Post, I think they might be lost on those who are not familiar with the bill.  (In listening to Tom Delay yesterday, it was clear that it was lost on him.)

"require that federal taxpayers fund the ongoing destruction of embryonic human life."

This is not correct.  The destruction of embryos would not be funded by Federal dollars.  If a couple undergoes fertility treatments and as a result has fertilized eggs that they do not want to use for fertilized egg for scientific research.  Researchers, working without Federal dollars, could use that embryo to start a Stem Cell Line.  This bill allows a second set of scientists, using Federal dollars, to acquire some of these cells to work on new cures for disease.

The other line is more correct:

"it compels all American taxpayers to pay for research that relies on the intentional destruction of human embryos"

but I find this argument (not it's proponents), that we should not have our tax dollars  used for anything that we as individuals do not support, to be juvenile.  I was at dKos the other day and I believe I heard a similar comment from someone there to the effect of:  "I don't want my tax dollars being spent to kill defenseless women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We should all claim our portion of every F-16, M-1 Abrams tank, and every soldier who gets paid with our tax dollars and bring them home."

Despite my public persona, I am a bit squishy on this issue, but less so after researching it for yesterday's piece.  That said, I do absolutely oppose the government funding this research and am glad to be a Director of an organization that takes a clear cut stand on this issue.

"class of humans".  We are not all in agreement that the nouns "human", "person", "baby", "child", etc. apply to a blastocyst immersed in liquid nitrogen that is never going to be implanted into a woman's uterus.

to what genus and species do the said embryonic stem cells belong?

If a couple undergoes fertility treatments and as a result has fertilized eggs that they do not want to use for reproductive purposes they can donate the eggs for scientific research.  

I have no problem with that person not wanting his taxes to go towards something he considers immoral.  When he or someone that agrees with him on it is elected president we can argue further.
-bro

genus and species as your liver cells.  Does that make cells from your liver a "human being", "a person", "a baby", "a child"?

Doesn't have the potential sua sponte to rise out of my body and demand to be fed. At least, I hope it doesn't.

but as you know neither does a blastocyst frozen in liquid nitrogen that is no longer intended for reproductive purposes.

really pushing it. I'm not a biologist, but even I can see that this is dung. The human liver is not a genus or species - the human liver is an organ within the human species. A mitochondria is within a cell, it is not a cell in and of itself, and does not contain all the necessary elements to make a cell. So it is with the liver.

The embryo, on the other hand, is merely the Lowest Common Denominator of the human species. In the course of ordinary replication and growth, a human being forms. Take as many liver cells as you want and put them in a petri dish, and that never happens.

in the principle of "no taxation without representation"? What is the point of strictly restricting the levying of taxes to the legislative branch, if it were not intended to be a reasonable means through which the taxed could have a say about what their tax money went towards?

Now, the fallacy of the moonbat that you quote is that once the decision has been made, it's too late to try and go get your money back. That's water under the bridge. It's another thing entirely to attempt to influence public policy so that your money doesn't go toward paying for it in the first place. That's damming the water before the bridge, which is perfectly effective.

yes the liver is an organ made up of tissue, which is made up of cells which are from the genus and species of man.

The point Streiff was making is wrong.  A cell's classification into a particular genus and species does not make it a member of the species.  As you know, your liver is not a person.

This is exactly how cloning works and the idea behind using adult and cord stem cells.  So we can get into all kinds of debates about the definition of human life if you are going to conflate it with the potential to grow into a living, breathing, walking, talking, person under the right circumstances.

And as I have pointed out in previous threads, taking this extreme position also logically leads to calling for a ban on IVF, probably oral birth control pills, and most definitely IUDs.

....wouldn't support for the death penalty negate this as a Republican value/ideology?  Isn't the continued pro-Death stance (especially) untenable when men and women are released from prisons because of wrongful convictions, sloppy DNA analysis, and outright lies on the part of prosecutors?

I understand that consistency is the hobgoblin.....  (u know the rest)...  but give it a break!

...that the government can compel support for its speech (e.g., use our tax dollars to allow scientists to better determine any effective uses for embryonic stem cells..

the point I am making is right.

Unless you believe in sponataneous generation, something Pasteur and others disproved, the embryos are human. They can be nothing else. They have all the chromosomes necessary to become a human. Indeed, you can DNA type the embryo to identify the parents.

Now I can see where you may want to cloud the issue by calling it something else but the fact is inescapable.

Now you may wish to argue the personhood of the embryo, a morally vacant position IMO, but the nature of the these embryos as biological humans can't be denied.

A cell's classification into a particular genus and species does not make it a member of the species.

Sorry, by definition it does. Unless you have a interspecies organ transplant.

rotwang, please offer more than just dismissing the argument by labeling it extreme and refering to its implications.

We believe that every member of our species has the same dignity. Since the embryo is a member of our species, this applies to him/her as well.

Where's the flaw in the argument?

This bill has nothing to do with banning anything. It is only dealing with using federal money to underwrite this research directly or indirectly. Period.

some leadership on this issue.  Mr. Bush's policy has been in effect (for what) 4 years now?  Almost every CREDIBLE scientist who has tried to use the stem cell lines that are currently supported by the Feds has described a myriad of problems (not the least of which is the difficulty of getting access to any of them, not to mention the potential chimeric implications of man of these lies being crossed with mouse genes).  I could go on, but I won't.

I wish that the Republican Party would actively embrace its "big tent."  (I wish that the Democrats would do the same thing also).

I have a hard time, however, when someone tries to equate humanity to a ball of cells (blatocysts) that (admittedly) have  the potential to create life.  However, if the stem cell scientists are to be believed, then many cells have this potential through DNA extraction and re-implantation.  (Don't quote me on this, I'm not a scientist.)

Re:  your anecdote(s).  Spare me, please.  I'm glad that the former petri dish (pre-baby) Trey was "adopted" as an embryo.  I wish that people who are pro-life would also "adopt" the millions of petri dish embryos that currently get destryoed because there are NO regulations.  I also wish that people who are SO pro-life would begin to adopt the millions of children who remain mired in foster care systems throughout the country, many languishing until they are 18 years of age and then kicked out on their own in a very ignominous (sp) way.

So, Mr. Bush was with "21 children rescued from the trash heap and the Petri dish."  Guess what, on Sunday I was in a park with about 30 children (by my estimate), all of whom (I suppose) where rescued from the loins of their parents.  My story has as much to do with funding stem cell research as yours does, so give it a break.

Science is not about anecdotes.  It is not about uncomprising, untenable and unchanging positions.  It is about pushing limits (in a moral and ethical way), but doing so with the goal of helping those of us who are currently walking around breathing and thinking and sentinent beings.  When the petri-dish blastocyst/embryo is able to do the same thing, then my heart will cry out for him/her.

And, one other thing.  When did the Congress become the morality police or the nation's ethicists?  Their job is to formulate policy.  Not to tell me what my morals or ethics should be.  That's why I go to church.

So a human being that can advance to the next stage of human development without assistance is your test of whether we should provide legal protection.  What about a newborn?  Isn't it true that without assistance he or she will not develop to be a toddler, or an adolescent, or an adult?  But of course this is not your stance, because you already prejudged that no subject at the embryonic stage can be a human being.  What then is your definition of a human being then?

A volitional choice outside of the organism's control. I could will my liver into being a cooing infant all I want, and it would still be a slightly nasty (but incredibly regenerative!) lump of tissue. There is no way, without somehow turning my liver cells into blastocysts -- and thereby changing their fundamental nature -- to turn my liver into a person.

Great comment, streiff; just one thing:

"A cell's classification into a particular genus and species does not make it a member of the species."

There is some truth in dissention's point... not every cell with human dna is a human being; the cell's in my eyes are not homo sapiens.

But embryos are homo sapiens... they are already human beings. So his point doesn't apply in the end.

conservatives have watched the republicans, they voted for, turn into liberals.  All of congress is now liberal.  

Technically, there is no such thing. Once a sperm and ovum successfully unite, their identity is subsumed by the new entity.

Meaning, of course, that they are not donating eggs at all... they are donating homo sapiens.

There is a marked difference between the harvesting of embryos for research and ultimately commercial gain, and abortion for convenience and profit, and the execution of felons after due process.

So the initial point is that there is no comparability at all between killing the innocent and killing sociopaths who have killed other persons.

The second point is that your objection to the death penalty based on wrongful conviction actually places you against any punishment regime because so long as guilt is adjudged by humans mistakes will be made. Why is it okay to imprison a person for life based on a wrongful conviction?

Some folks like to engage in the MKS fallacy. Hardly seems right to stop them from picking at their scabs.

Your liver cells have about six times as many chromosomes as cells in the rest of your body.  Does that make your liver six times the man you are?

Chromosomes don't make you a person.  They are necessary, but not sufficient.  It is the sufficiency that we are arguing about here.  Being a cell from a particular species is not sufficient to make you a "member" of the species.

But I'd respectfully suggest you read stories posted on the issue by myself, Thomas, or Trevino before making this argument again.  Saying the President has led on this issue is itself a real stretch.

Cite, please? I have a hard time believing that my liver is dodecaploid.

is the point that you have made here.

"not every cell with human dna is a human being; the cell's in my eyes are not homo sapiens."

My point does apply to Steiff's comment about what genus and species do they belong too?  

And as you have clarified just being a cell from the species does make a cell a member of the species.  

liver cells have 138 pairs of chromosomes?

I'm admittedly not a biologist but I am always open to new information. Care to provide a cite?

So, Mr. Bush was with "21 children rescued from the trash heap and the Petri dish."  Guess what, on Sunday I was in a park with about 30 children (by my estimate), all of whom (I suppose) where rescued from the loins of their parents.  My story has as much to do with funding stem cell research as yours does, so give it a break.

Except that some came from embryos otherwise destined for destruction for the sake of stem cell research, and others did not.  Silly me for thinking that is an important distinction.

When did the Congress become the morality police or the nation's ethicists?  Their job is to formulate policy.  Not to tell me what my morals or ethics should be.  That's why I go to church.

I am glad you believe we should have no laws based on moral judgements.  Please, where is your bike?  I would like to steal it.

As for the foster care system: considering that according to the latest study, American families who adopt children are overwhelmingly pro-life, I'd say they are doing just that.  Like my family, for instance.  And my cousin's family.  And my uncle's family.

Also, Toni Morrison sucks giant monkey balls.  That is all.

In trevino's contest for today.

It is not about uncomprising, untenable and unchanging positions.  It is about pushing limits (in a moral and ethical way), but doing so with the goal of helping those of us who are currently walking around breathing and thinking and sentinent beings.  When the petri-dish blastocyst/embryo is able to do the same thing, then my heart will cry out for him/her.

Who sets that morality? Those ethics? Who enforces them?

Can I help my new child when s/he arrives? S/he won't be sentient for a while yet. Indeed, arguably, no child under two or so is -- they have such a cruddy conception of self, it's debatable the word sentient would be remotely applicable.

Those uncompromising, and ahem, "untenable" positions made the Dachau experiments palatable -- it's not like even a large minority of Germany's scientists resisted the explicit Nazi linkage between the supermen and the scientist. Worth thinking about.

By the way: Accepting the data from the Dachau tests. Moral or not? Why?

GOP Polls show that Republicans support stem cell research 57-40.  General Polls show about 50-39 for Republicans and a larger gap for the general population.  The gap is obviously larger if you are only talking about the research and not the funding.

How does that mean the bipartisan bill is "liberal"?  

This reference says tetraploid in the liver

http://aspin.asu.edu/geneinfo/abnum.htm

"A proportion of polyploid cells occurs normally in human bone marrow, as megakaryocytes usually have 8-16 times the haploid number. Tetraploid cells are also a normal feature of regenerating liver and other tissues."

but there are cells in the human body that are polyploid to different degrees.

Liberalism sacarafices the rights of the individual to the interest of society in an attempt to create a more perferct world.

Conservatism upholds the rights of the individual against the world in order to creat a more perfect society.

I think I just read that somewhere, but can't remember the place.

Liberalismm is not subject to voter choice.  Things are either liberal or conservative, no matter how many people are wrong about them.

ultimately this debate is about money.

There is no ban on embryonic stem cell research, there is only a ban on the taxpayer/Federal funding of that research.

The demand here is that the company's involved want the taxpayers to pay for research on something many of those taxpayers find morally reprehensible.

Two recent polls - commissioned by groups on opposite sides - showed majority opposition to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

An International Communications Research poll earlier this month found 52 to 36 percent opposition among all adults.  It was commissioned by the NRLC.

A nationwide poll of Republicans only, sponsored by advocates of H.R. 810 and conducted by The Winston Group, found 58 to 36 percent were OPPOSED to expanded federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (this finding was not highlighted in Winston's press release, for obvious reasons).  

Moreover, Winston's release acknowledged that when respondents were further informed that "this is research in which a living human embryo is killed," it made a difference:  

"73% were less favorable as a result.  Even those who were pro-choice were more negative after hearing this message, as 64% said less favorable."

Ramesh Ponnuru, who interviewed Dave Winston on the poll, critiques it further here.

to lift this extended quote from a page dealing with genetic defects and abnormalities?

1. Polyploidy

    · A complete extra set of chromosomes raises the total number to 69 (triploidy).

    This usually arises from:

        Fertilisation by two sperm (dispermy)

        Or from failure of one of the maturation divisions of either the egg or the sperm, producing a diploid gamete.

               A triploid fetus (which usually miscarries) would be 69,XXY (most common), 69,XXX or 69,XYY depending on the origin of the extra set of chromosomes.

Or am I just missing something?

Again, I'd like that cite on the 138 pairs of chromosomes in liver cells.

When the petri-dish blastocyst/embryo is able to do the same thing, then my heart will cry out for him/her.

What happened to standing up for those who cannot stand up for themselves? For speaking out for those who don't have a voice?

For some, it's skin color, for others, it's degree of development.

My fear on this is that granting cells in a Petri dish human status has lots of ramifications. Specifically it would end all clinics who help couples have babies via in vitro fertilization.

Usually lots of extra eggs are fertilized than will be used in that process. As I noted here I know of a case where 8 were leftover. Lots of states have laws granting human status to fetuses, especially when dealing with violent crimes against the mother and baby. Granting human status to these fertilized eggs now makes somebody guilty of a crime, possibly 8 counts of murder.

Volition and choice are not only outside the organism's control they are outside the organism's capacities.

The volition and choice of the people donating these embryos for research is within their control.  The embryos are being used for research.  They will be destroyed whether federal research funds are provided or not.  By delaying funding we are delaying potential benefit, we are not delaying destruction.

The only thing within our control is the support of the research into treatments.  I choose to try to help sick people given that these embryos will be destroyed anyway.

As I clarified, it may only be tetraploid.

to Alzheimers victims, comatose people on life support, and infants for that matter. They have neither volition or choice. I don't think we want to start harvesting body parts to save a life.

A group conducted a poll which supports their claim, what a surprise.  Most mainstream (IE - not 'biased') polls find support in favor, not opposed.  

Here's an example:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/24/opinion/polls/main697546.shtml

I'm not sure how reliable polls are for determining whether an issue is supported.  The poll here states that 57% of Republicans surveyed supported embryonic stem cell research, while 40% opposed.  And on a follow-up question, 54% said it was a research issue, while only 40% stated it was an abortion issue.  

when someone offers a bill supporting harvesting body parts from what we can all agree is a person.

The disagreement is about this:  "What is a person?"

Clearly.

That is the same poll I linked to, just a different link.

And, of course, that report does not cite the answers to the funding question, which is what we're debating here.

I said nothing about the next stage in human development I said a baby. A newborn is a baby.

As I admitted, my personal position is at viability. At that point you have the potential for an individual. I do understand that that is a shaky philosophy with a moving dividing line. I was exploring other philosophical approaches.

The problem with many of these issues is that our religions/philosophical belief systems were formed when we didn't understand the biological processes as well as we do now. We just noted that a man and woman had sex, she became "with child" and voila a new life.

We didn't understand how frequently the process goes awry. There is also the twin issue where an original zygote splits and makes two twins. If you believe that life begins at conception, that's a puzzling thing with only one conception, but two lives.

See how easy it is to discredit a poll.  So much for the credibility of your original post.

Here --->

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=stem+cell+polls

Most polls show support in favor.  Maybe the internet overall is bias.  But, the beta of the internet to public at large is closer to one than the beta of the NRLC to the public at large.

The point here is not that one poll says one thing, and the truely independent minded NRLC poll finds another.  It's, as others have pointed out, it's a binary and divisive issue.  I don't expect you to drop your position, which is clearly wrong, any more than you expect me to drop you position, which is clearly wrong.

There is also the twin issue where an original zygote splits and makes two twins. If you believe that life begins at conception, that's a puzzling thing with only one conception, but two lives.

No, there's one life at conception, and a second which comes to be at a later point.

Your basis for opposition to this bill is that creating stem cell lines out of excess embryos from IVF with the donors consent is  "the most callous evaluation of human worth."  

In other discussions on this subject, embryonic stem-cell research has been compared to Mengele's experiments at Auschwitz and abortion has been called genocide.  So although this post is against this particular piece of legislation, I cannot see how the reasoning that leads you to object to this legislation, combined with this site's other postings on this issue, does not make my point above perfectly valid.  That is, not only is this legislation flawed, but IVF as it is currently practiced, current embryonic stem-cell research (even if privately funded) and certain forms of birth control are equally evil and should be banned.

Splitting zygotes, incomplete embryos and other things that happen naturally to prevent the growth/survival or create additional life are far different than things that are done purposefully and with the full intent and knowledge that life or at the very least potential life is being destroyed.

If I get pregnant, and there is something wrong with the embryo and I have a miscarriage there is no moral ethic attached-it happened naturally and without any intent on my part.  If I head down to the local abortion clinic, and have an abortion, there is most definitely a moral ethic attacked and there is a specific intent on my part to prevent the baby from growing and surviving.  

If the life begins at a later point. This is just going to get worse as our technology gets more capable. Cloning generates another interesting twist on this whole process.

Some are tetraploid, some hexaploid, some octaploid "Polyploidy was observed up to 16c in the liver".

It is not uncommon in cells with the potential to regenerate or that are important for high rates of metabolism.  In fruit flies for instance, the salivary glands contain hundreds of copies of the chromosomes.

When the zygote begins to grow or when it attaches to your body? While we take steps to protect life, we also routine choose actions which make potential life possible or impossible.

Then try again.

The question was kind of slanted to elict the response they wanted.  Although I'm sure they could have gotten more favorable poll results if they had posed the question as:

"Evil Nazi scientists want to use your tax dollars to rip apart live babies to get their stem cells so they can breed a race of gay atheists to teach your children.  Do you agree with this?"  

To push the lines with this kind of trolling. We have a mission statement for a reason. I invite you to re-read it, or depart.

If you kill humans, the law should be universal. Self defense, lack of intent, lack of knowledge, etc., all apply, but the law shouldn't except one group of humans from its protection, or it's no law at all.

I thought my answer was responsive.  If you think it wasn't you're going to have to explain more clearly why you think not.

Thomas:

My fear (which may be Doverspa's as well) is that RedState will take the "conservative" position on each and every one of the issues you listed.  In which case, yes, it would be better to change the description of RedState to a "Conservative" Republican website.  

On the issue itself:  I perfectly understand why one would oppose using public money to fund the destruction of embryos (or the creation of embryos that are likely to be destroyed).  Indeed, even though I'm tentatively in favor of embryonic stem cell research, I would categorically oppose such a bill.*  But that is not HR 810, as I understand the bill.  HR 810 merely allows researchers to use embryos that are already going to be destroyed (either by destruction or neglect) for potentially life-saving research.  Indeed, I understand that the intentional creating of embryos for research will remain strictly prohibited.**

Given that HR 810 will not, in fact, lead to the destruction of any additional embryos, a lot of the arguments being advanced against it seem a bit off point.  What you're really arguing, it seems to me, is the slippery slope -- based on religious or philosophical views of what is a human being, and when a human being exists.

von

*Question:  Do federal funds go to fertility clinics? for, if they do, that would seem to be a better place for these arguments.

**If it turns out that I've misunderstood the bill then, of course, I may modify my position.

In reaching your position, did you reach a consensus as to what constitutes life and when that life begins? It would seem that those initial determinations would be a sine qua non for your ultimate position on H.R. 810.  Out of curiosity then, what was the position of the Directors on what constitutes human life and at what point in time that life began?

As for the posting rules, I don't see how I have violated any particular rule other than the vague "disruptive behavior" rule.  And that is really a stretch, other than you not liking my politics.  I certainly go out of my way not to violate any of the explicit rules and remain on-topic.  I really do enjoy the debate on this site.

In the future I will curb my sarcasm.

I should have pointed out that I went and read the question in the poll the NRLC commissioned. It is quite obvious that the poll is what is known in the polling industry as a "push poll" designed to elicit a particular response, and therefore unhelpful in determining the true attitude of the public.

Was limited to "should the President veto this bill?" Not to say we don't have lots of discussions about these issues.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the objection you have to this bill is that it results in the "destruction of human life".  It would seem to me before you could reach an ultimate conclusion on H.R. 810, you would have to first reach a consensus on what qualifies as human life and when that life comes into being.  Obviously you all believe an embryo is a life -- but what criteria did you apply to reach that conclusion?  I would submit without identifying your underlying assumptions on what constitutes life, it is impossible for anyone to give serious analytical consideration to your position on this bill.

Does not mean that A is true, especially when A has already been described as true, and B does not contradict A.

But the nature of the sarcasm.

No worries, then.

No one said that every human being comes to exist at conception (as twinning indicates). But point of "life begins at conception" is that the conceptus is a human being, not that every human being begins to exist then.

If twinning could occur at the adult stage, would that mean either a) that there was no human being prior to that moment, or b) that there were two human beings prior to that moment? Of course not, on both counts.

Most human beings begin their existence at conception, but some begin their existence at the point of twinning and some begin their existence when a nucleus and a denucleated ovum are fused.

The specific question which garnered 52% opposed v. 36% support was:

Stem cells are the basic cells from which all of a person's tissues and organs develop. Congress is considering the question of federal funding for experiments using stem cells from human embryos. The live embryos would be destroyed in their first week of development to obtain these cells. Do you support or oppose using your federal tax dollars for such experiments?

      Support        36.0%

      Oppose         51.6%

      Don't know     10.5%

      Refused         1.9%

Since neither side seems to believe bad poll results it might be a good practice to post the actual question asked in the poll so people can make up their own mind about the poll.

How does implantation matter to the moral and ontological status of the embryo? It's still what it is: an actual human being (not a potential one).

Seems an interesting subject to make a formal announcement about. Very divisive for a party trying to maintain some cohesion.

As a Liberal, I again am amazed that some of the more conservative members of the republican party would choose yet another divisive issue for the party. I mean I have no illusions about any advice I may give here, but in the interest of fair debate and fair play, It wouldn't be my first choice considering the current atmosphere. But, it really is none of my business.

to offer advice to liberals, but it seems to me that your collective reluctance to have a debate over what you believe is what Carville et al at Democracy Corps were talking about.

True enough, but if you are looking of an indisputable, unique, starting point, my comment is relevent.

Again, the issue here in this bill is taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research.  Not whether the research should happen.

You can continue to ignore that fact as you will, but it is a very easy distinction to understand if you have the ability to read.

(changed tally format to make it easier to cut

and paste and still failed to make it all line up, please excuse any sloppiness).

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. May 20-22, 2005. N=1,006 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

As you may know, the federal government currently provides very limited funding for medical research that uses stem cells obtained from human embryos. Which would you prefer the government to do: place no restrictions on government funding of stem cell research, ease the current restrictions to allow more stem cell research, keep the current restrictions in place, or should the government not fund stem cell research at all?" Options rotated.

                         5/20-22/05    10/9-10/04

No Restrictions            11              14

Ease Restrictions          42              41

Current Restrictions       24              24

No Funding At All          19              14

Unsure                     4                7

Time Poll conducted by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs. May 10-12, 2005. N=1,011 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

      .

"In August 2001, President Bush restricted federal funding to a limited number of existing stem cell lines, cutting off funding for research on these discarded embryos. Last fall, California voters approved raising $3 billion in state money for stem cell research, including developing more lines of embryonic stem cells. Do you personally agree more with . . . . ?"

 "The President's decision to restrict federally-funded embryonic stem cell research" 20

 "Californians who voted to fund additional stem cell research" 50

 "Government funds shouldn't be used for this type of stem cell research at all" 22

Unsure 8

"Should other states follow California's lead in funding all types of stem cell research, or not?"

      .

  Should Should Not Unsure  

              % % %  

 5/10-12/05 53 37 9

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Oct. 14-15, 2004. N=1,004 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.

"Do you favor or oppose using federal tax dollars to fund medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos?"

      .

  Favor Oppose Unsure    

                % % %    

 10/14-15/04 50 36 14

University of Pennsylvania National Annenberg Election Survey. July 30-Aug. 5, 2004. N=1,345 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for total sample). Interviewing conducted by Schulman, Ronca, Bucuvalas, Inc.

"Do you favor or oppose federal funding of research on diseases like Alzheimer's using stem cells taken from human embryos?"

  Favor Oppose

 ALL 64 28    

 Republicans 53 38

 Democrats 74 20    

 Independents 67 26

I do not have the exact question of the internal R polling, and I left off the ones that did not explicitly address funding.  

Source

Abortion?  Schiavo-gate?  Gay-Rights (not marriage but Lawerence v Texas type rights)?  

Then there's fiscal conservativism with small and balanced budgets.  This administration goes in the opposite direction in a more extreme manner than any administration in decades.  

The traditional definition of "Conservative" in political science and American politics does not apply to the Republican party.  Rather the party is now "neoconservative" in its foreign policy and "evangelical" in its domestic policy.  

One can support those policies, of course.  But there is little in common with the Goldwaters of the old Republican party of conservativism with the new school of Republicans who call themselves conservative except line of descent.

As a progressive living in the 21st Century, I see stem cell research is vital to the betterment of science & quality of life.  Dubya's veto threat is yet another tactic being used to divide this nation about an issue that ought not be political.   Surprise!  Its working like a charm.

Tax dollars are currently being spent on tons of research that is found to be objectionable to some tax payers.  Horrible things are done to animals in the name of science and horrible things have been done to humans as well.  Yet, we hear little from the "Culture of Life" camp about these issues.  Moreover, the "Culture of life" camp ought to be concerned with the potential to save lives and spare misery through scientific advances.

To those of you who feel that stem cell research is amoral, I suggest you avoid all future medical advances that are available to you courtesy of foreign stem cell technology when you get that horrible news from your doctor...

Then pull out your checkbook and write out some checks to your favorite research facilities.  There is no law that stops from supporting personally what you have no objections to.

. . . once there is an embryo, it is a human life. The debate is over whether it is a person.

Or so I thought.

"Except that some came from embryos otherwise destined for destruction for the sake of stem cell research, and others did not.  Silly me for thinking that is an important distinction."

None of these were destined to destruction for the sake of stem cell research.  The embryos have to be donated for scientific research.    Many rertility clinics already have embryo donation services for other couples who cannot afford or do not want to go through the in-vitro fertilization process.  If every embryo frozen in every clinic is adopted by someone then there will be no point in funding this research.

The bill does nothing to hinder or inhibit the donation and/or adoption of embryos for reproductive purposes.  It is only relevant in cases where embryos have been donated for scientific research.

As for your last line,...

I think that belongs in a "gay marriage leads to bestiality" thread.

Also, Toni Morrison sucks giant monkey balls.  That is all.

Are you being forced to read Beloved by a commie college professor, too? Jee-miny, that was one stinking pile of turd of a book.

Have any of you read any Jared Diamond? The way he is being discussed recently, you'd think he invented civilization, or at the very least history. Is he worth a read?

"...the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap."

was a good book once you looked beyond the "all cultures are equal even though they didn't use the wheel or rise above subsistence agriculture" hokum, and, of course, his relentless self promotion as the only human in 10,000 years who had the training and background to write that book.

His current book, Collapse, is a monumental waste of time and I am glad I had the good sense to check it out of the library rather than buy it.

On both accounts.  I did find GGS to be an informative read.  What do you find objectionable, Macho?  I admit the self-promotion is over the top.

As I haven't read it yet. I was asking for input as to whether I should.

and use a copy of Collapse to get the charcoal in your grill started.

There are a number of philosophical positions that have basis in reason. Obviously if a foetus/baby cannot exist except as connected to its mother, then awarding it 'individual' status is problematical. It is unsatisfyingly imprecise, however. I accept that your philosophical position is different, do not pretend that it is the only possible one that someone can hold.

William, how does the presence (or lack) of a physical connection affect the moral/ontological status of an entity? How does this position apply in the case of simese twins?

And aren't we all dependent on a particular environment to exist? Does that lack of complete independence mean that we aren't individuals?

According to the summary which I read, HR 810 "Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells..."  I am assuming that "conduct and support" is bureaucratese for "fund", but I could be wrong.

The r