6 years of no vetos, and now this...

[StoneGold]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060719/ap_on_go_pr_wh/stem_cells;_ylt=AguAdpePqp4s7.ztx1y3dAGs0NUE;_ylu= X3oDMTA3OTB1amhuBHNlYwNtdHM-

Quite frankly, I find several things disturbing about this story. The "adoption" of stem cells, for instance. Serious, there aren't enough people on this planet without taking someone else's genetic material and shoving it into your own womb? You couldn't just adopt some kid who actually needed your help?

That, and the use of the term pre-born. Which implies that they aren't unborn, they just haven't been born yet.

[Forefinger]

Fuck. That. Guy.

[Michael P]

When you're to the right of Orrin Hatch and Bill Frist on an issue, maybe you should rethink your position.

[meethraa]

Potential investors should just send money to somewhere on the free world, so research can still be made.

[jessecuster3]

The research is already going on. I have a friend who is paralysed, she read about a girl who had the same spinal injury as her. The girl went to South America and therewas a doctor there who used stem cells on the injured part of her spine and she can walk again. The girl has been consistently petitioning DC to get approval for any of it here and still to no avail. Meanwhile, my friend still cannot walk and still cannot use her fingers.


These senators are the same ones limiting this research.

[StoneGold]

These senators are the same ones limiting this research.
In all fairness, the bill is passing with an overwhelming majority.


Just not with the 2/3 majority needed to overturn a veto.

[Forefinger]

See my post above.

The potential applications for the stem cells are mind blowing. My Grandfather had Alzheimers, and it was horrible seeing the process. It was 2 years of hell for my Grandmother before he died. The stem cells could potentially cure that. I can't stand this small minded thinking. "Oh, it's something new, let's be scared of it!"

[jessecuster3]

In all fairness, the bill is passing with an overwhelming majority.


Just not with the 2/3 majority needed to overturn a veto.


They missed it by 3 votes ! That's crap.

[Dreadstar]

Quite frankly, I find several things disturbing about this story. The "adoption" of stem cells, for instance.

It's a "message" thing. It's to reinforce the pro-life view that life begins at conception. It's right there in the article: "The message there is that an embryo can create a human being"

That, and the use of the term pre-born. Which implies that they aren't unborn, they just haven't been born yet.

You're upset that a fervent activist anti-abortion/pro-life group use leading words and phrases to spin their message? Man, that's hardly worth a blink, let alone getting upset over. Annoying, yes. Disturbing? Really? It's probably no different than the pro-choice folk using the term "parasite." You find a nice safe semantic ledge to throw your rocks from.

All that aside, though, THIS is a definite maneuver by the Republicans to garner a bit of momentum going into the mid-terms. Nothing like identifying the people who oppose one of the main hot-button issues to the voters. If a voter who is staunchly in the pro-life camp and might otherwise vote for candidate X but sees candidate X voting for a bill that the Repubs are making out to be (whether correctly or NOT) an anti-abortion issue, do you think that voter might change his mind on candidate X?

Yep.

[StoneGold]

All that aside, though, THIS is a definite maneuver by the Republicans to garner a bit of momentum going into the mid-terms. Nothing like identifying the people who oppose one of the main hot-button issues to the voters. If a voter who is staunchly in the pro-life camp and might otherwise vote for candidate X but sees candidate X voting for a bill that the Repubs are making out to be (whether correctly or NOT) an anti-abortion issue, do you think that voter might change his mind on candidate X?

Yep.
Assuming they can manage to spin it that way. I doubt the almost 2/3 majority would have voted that way if they thought there was any chance of it jeopardizing their seats.

[Dreadstar]

Assuming they can manage to spin it that way. I doubt the almost 2/3 majority would have voted that way if they thought there was any chance of it jeopardizing their seats.

I'm thinking that the best thing to happen to the Republicans in this arena would be for the veto to be overturned. Seriously. Then the spin goes wild, and the very first negative ads to go out mention how Candidate X voted for research on stem cells killing the pre-born.

As to the latter, you may be right, but it's a sad state of affairs when the priority of our lawmakers is not the meat of the bill but the repurcussions to their incumbancy. Not that that's anything new, y'know. Probably centuries old policy to be sure. Just commenting.

[StoneGold]

As to the latter, you may be right, but it's a sad state of affairs when the priority of our lawmakers is not the meat of the bill but the repurcussions to their incumbancy. Not that that's anything new, y'know. Probably centuries old policy to be sure. Just commenting.
Not really. Them not getting voted out generally equals them voting the way their constituency thinks. More or less, kinda sorta.

[Dreadstar]

Not really. Them not getting voted out generally equals them voting the way their constituency thinks. More or less, kinda sorta.

VERY good point.

But haven't we already concluded that the majority in the U.S. can sometimes be wrong? As in the majority who voted in many states in 2004 to prevent anything that "simulated" marriage? Indeed, of these congressmen's district's, how many of them are a majority pro-life? I can certainly think of 2, in my backyard.

[Dennis K]

http://secure.sureshiponline.com/VH1/INVENTORY_IMAGES/TBWDECIDERBLT.JPG

[SMKSPY]

Of course, he vetoed the bill...we can't have the drug companies lose money because a better life saving technique has arrived...now that would just be wrong.

[Dreadstar]

Of course, he vetoed the bill...we can't have the drug companies lose money because a better life saving technique has arrived...now that would just be wrong.

To be fair, while Bush is pretty sure to back a position worth money in the pocket, I'm fairly certain that this one is for reasons of a personal morality nature. Whether or not that's a GOOD thing or the morality is defendable are completely different issues. I'm thinking he's been pretty damned consistent on this and similar issues for as long as he's been around.

[SMKSPY]

To be fair, while Bush is pretty sure to back a position worth money in the pocket, I'm fairly certain that this one is for reasons of a personal morality nature. Whether or not that's a GOOD thing or the morality is defendable are completely different issues. I'm thinking he's been pretty damned consistent on this and similar issues for as long as he's been around.

I'm not saying Morality isn't a issue also, but Bush's morality is based off of his love of money.

[Dreadstar]

I'm not saying Morality isn't a issue also, but Bush's morality is based off of his love of money.

On this issue, I think we're in disagreement.

[StoneGold]

I'm not saying Morality isn't a issue also, but Bush's morality is based off of his love of money.
You're thinking of Cheney. Bush has no concept of money. He's been rich his entire life.

[SMKSPY]

You're thinking of Cheney. Bush has no concept of money. He's been rich his entire life.

I think Bush just doesn't show his love of money as much as Cheney, but its there.

On this issue, I think we're in disagreement.

I think we both agree its his morality, but I'm just adding the subconscious capitolist that lies at the core of Bush to the mix.

[Puma]

Not really. Them not getting voted out generally equals them voting the way their constituency thinks. More or less, kinda sorta.

I always thought a good part of not getting voted out had to do with voter apathy (going with the familiar sounding name) and advertising blitz campaigns

[Dreadstar]

I think we both agree its his morality, but I'm just adding the subconscious capitolist that lies at the core of Bush to the mix.


See, I never ever understood this, and it's sometimes the cause of a bit of friction between me and other posters around here:

Bush is a big enough dick already. Huge asshole. Fucking things up left and right, almost weekly. Like this veto, for example. So, why make things up and/or attribute phantom evils to him? I'd think that would be counter-productive, in the long run.

[StoneGold]

I always thought a good part of not getting voted out had to do with voter apathy (going with the familiar sounding name) and advertising blitz campaigns
Hence the more or less, kinda sorta part of that quote. I mean, in theory, if politicians are going against the wishes of their consituency, they will be voted out of office in the next election. In theory. In theory, communism works. In theory.

[StoneGold]

See, I never ever understood this, and it's sometimes the cause of a bit of friction between me and other posters around here:

Bush is a big enough dick already. Huge asshole. Fucking things up left and right, almost weekly. Like this veto, for example. So, why make things up and/or attribute phantom evils to him? I'd think that would be counter-productive, in the long run.
The funny thing is, I'm agreeing with you on this, although not necessarily for the reasons you think. I think Bush is so out of touch with the world, he doesn't properly comprehend exactly what money is. Oh, sure, he knows, but it's that stuff his daddy's friends will give him if he loses all of his own.

GW's not money hungry. Just the opposite. Remember when his dad was running for reelection, and he though a gallon of milk cost like $40, and didn't know what a price scanner is? Now imagine growing up the son of that.

[SMKSPY]

See, I never ever understood this, and it's sometimes the cause of a bit of friction between me and other posters around here:

Bush is a big enough dick already. Huge asshole. Fucking things up left and right, almost weekly. Like this veto, for example. So, why make things up and/or attribute phantom evils to him? I'd think that would be counter-productive, in the long run.


What am I making up? These "evils" are aspects of him that shape every decision he makes. They all contribute to the shittyness that is Bush.

[Dreadstar]

What am I making up? These "evils" are aspects of him that shape every decision he makes. They all contribute to the shittyness that is Bush.


What I'm saying is that this:

"... I'm just adding the subconscious capitolist that lies at the core of Bush to the mix."

Isn't necessary. It's gilding the lily. And it's conjecture.

[Adam Crocker]

What am I making up? These "evils" are aspects of him that shape every decision he makes. They all contribute the shittyness that is Bush.

You're claiming, without evidence no less, that Bush is opposing stem cell research for the sake of the drug companies. Not only in that there is no evidence for this, it goes against what we know about his reasons for doing so, and there's no reason to believe that the drug companies would oppose it either. For one thing, they'd be cutting themselves off from having the feds subsidizing a potential research avenue that might yield new pharmaceutical applications. In fact the top Biotechnology firms in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotechnology#Biotechnology_firms) all seem to be involved in producing pharmaceuticals. So without convincing evidence I find it very hard to believe that the drug companies are opposing federal funding to an avenue of bio-tech research.

Besides it's not in line with what we know about Bush, namely that praticality is often a secondary concern to his ideological goals.

[JeffreyWKramer]

More wrong-headed, harmful actions by Bush.

Not exactly surprising, but still sucky.

[SMKSPY]

What I'm saying is that this:

"... I'm just adding the subconscious capitolist that lies at the core of Bush to the mix."

Isn't necessary. It's gilding the lily. And it's conjecture.

ok...we're comic nerds, conjecturing is all we freaking do. Does it really matter if it is necessary?

[SMKSPY]

You're claiming, without evidence no less, that Bush is opposing stem cell research for the sake of the drug companies. Not only in that there is no evidence for this, it goes against what we know about his reasons for doing so, and there's no reason to believe that the drug companies would oppose it either. For one thing, they'd be cutting themselves off from having the feds subsidizing a potential research avenue that might yield new pharmaceutical applications. In fact the top Biotechnology firms in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotechnology#Biotechnology_firms) all seem to be involved in producing pharmaceuticals. So without convincing evidence I find it very hard to believe that the drug companies are opposing federal funding to an avenue of bio-tech research.

Besides it's not in line with what we know about Bush, namely that praticality is often a secondary concern to his ideological goals.

I never said that it was his only reason...your saying this apparently. I'm just saying its there. Because as we all know Bush is this great man that uses his religious beliefs to benefit everyone arcoss the globe.

[Solaris]

Bush has always been handed his money, and done what he was told. It's kinda like having someone who can't tie his own shoes, and who has never *had* to, running the tennis shoe company: his company *makes* the shoes... and he just assumes that everyone has someone else who ties the shoes for them, like he does.

[StoneGold]

I never said that it was his only reason...your saying this apparently. I'm just saying its there. Because as we all know Bush is this great man that uses his religious beliefs to benefit everyone arcoss the globe.
Think of it this way: was Caligula in it for the money? Was Nero?

[Michael P]

I never said that it was his only reason...your saying this apparently. I'm just saying its there. Because as we all know Bush is this great man that uses his religious beliefs to benefit everyone arcoss the globe.
No, he uses his religious beliefs to harm everyone across the globe. He just thinks he's benefitting them.

The man's gone on record as saying he believes he's God's chosen President. It's really not too far from there to "God wants me to veto this stem cell bill."

[SMKSPY]

Think of it this way: was Caligula in it for the money? Was Nero?

Everyone is in it for the money in one way or another. The way I see it is that history is defined by three things.

1. Death-- the first conscious realization of death created religion and all its aspects.

2. land-- the neighborhoods led to towns then cities then states then nations, which in turn led to war.

3. money--the appraisel of items with a monetary value has fucked everyone since.

[Noah Johnson]

I betcha if they could have figured out a way to get around this with a signing statement, he wouldn't have vetoed.

As it is, he's throwing a bone to the seriously nutty wing of the pro-lifers in his base by vetoing a bill for a cause that is, if I recall correctly, MUCH more popular than he is.

[StoneGold]

Everyone is in it for the money in one way or another. The way I see it is that history is defined by three things.

1. Death-- the first conscious realization of death created religion and all its aspects.

2. land-- the neighborhoods led to towns then cities then states then nations, which in turn led to war.

3. money--the appraisel of items with a monetary value has fucked everyone since.
Then that's your problem. You're thinking too small. First come de money, den come de power, den come de women. Bush is so far past money, it's not even funny.

I mean, seriously, how was Caligula banging his sister gonna earn him cash?

[Adam Crocker]

I never said that it was his only reason...your saying this apparently.

It's the only reason you've put forth as to why he's vetoing this bill, even though there's no evidence supporting this claim, as well as some evidence against it.

I'm just saying its there. Because as we all know Bush is this great man that uses his religious beliefs to benefit everyone arcoss the globe.

And where did I say anything like that? I said that he puts ideology above practicality, which is hardly complementary. This is what led to the current disaster in Iraq after all.

[SMKSPY]

It's the only reason you've put forth as to why he's vetoing this bill, even though there's no evidence supporting this claim, as well as some evidence against it.



And where did I say anything like that? I said that he puts ideology above practicality, which is hardly complementary. This is what led to the current disaster in Iraq after all.

I said the last part...

but I was making a joking originally...strange what you people take seriously and what you don't.

[SMKSPY]

Then that's your problem. You're thinking too small. First come de money, den come de power, den come de women. Bush is so far past money, it's not even funny.

I mean, seriously, how was Caligula banging his sister gonna earn him cash?


I think he made sex videos and then put them on the internet.

[Adam Crocker]

I said the last part...

but I was making a joking originally...strange what you people take seriously and what you don't.

You're "joke" was also making a serious comment on Bush's reasons for wanting to veto the bill which you argued for with Dread over. If you dodge taking responsibility for your remarks when someone offers up reasons as to why they may be wrong then please don't get involved in these discussions.

[SMKSPY]

You're "joke" was also making a serious comment on Bush's reasons for wanting to veto the bill which you argued for with Dread over. If you dodge taking responsibility for your remarks when someone offers up reasons as to why they may be wrong then please don't get involved in these discussions.

I'm not dodging responsibility dad...I'll say again if you like. Yes, Bush vetoed the bill because of moral "religious" reasons that is/ was he principle reason for vetoeing the bill. I never argued that. I'm saying whether its true or not that there is something deeper. I believe this because I don't trust Bush any father than I can throw him, which wouldn't be very far. No matter how simple he may try to project himself as, the President is a complex person and I refuse to believe that he vetoed this bill against a republican lead Congress and the will of the people based just off of his moral principles. I refuse to believe that.

Edit
and Adam, thanks from the warning...now I'll be sure to stay away from all the very serious debates that go on here. Because lord knows everything we talk about is read by scholars and politicans who actually give a shit about what we think. ::rollie eye icon place here:::

[Calybos]

I put the veto in the same category as the sudden "emergency" of same-sex marriage... his gang desperately needs to pander to the religious nuts in an election year.

Immigration blew up in their faces, the flag-burning amendment went nowhere (and more importantly, didn't give him a PR bounce), so this is a good way to stroke the crazies in time for fall elections.

[Samurai]

Of all the possible things he could have used his 1st veto on, this should have been at the bottom of the list. Why not veto all the pork barrel spending or other BS? While I understand his moral objections (and think money has absolutely nothing to do with it), I disagree with his reasoning here. I'm glad that the govt is still funding non-fetal stem cell research, and research on existing lines, and that there's no ban on private reaserch into fetal stem cells, but they really should take off this 1 limitation. I hope they get the 2/3 majority needed to overturn it. They just need to convince a few more folks...

[Jack Zodiac]

I don't usually wish ill on other people, even people who really deserve it, but in this instance, I hope something terrifyingly horrible happens to Bush or someone close to him. Something that could have, one day, been healed thanks to the wonders of stem cell research. That'd be fucking poetic as hell.

[Nick Soapdish]

I put the veto in the same category as the sudden "emergency" of same-sex marriage... his gang desperately needs to pander to the religious nuts in an election year.

Immigration blew up in their faces, the flag-burning amendment went nowhere (and more importantly, didn't give him a PR bounce), so this is a good way to stroke the crazies in time for fall elections.

I agree. And I'd add Terri Schiavo to that list.

Interestingly, she's an issue in the Republican primaries for governor here in Florida because Gallagher (not the watermelon guy, but I always think of him) is asserting that Crist didn't support the Jebster enough while Crist is saying that he did lots behind the scenes.

But I don't think it's just politics. Dubya is one of those religious nuts.


And I don't think they're anywhere close to being able to overturn. I thought the House had it by 50 votes.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I don't usually wish ill on other people, even people who really deserve it, but in this instance, I hope something terrifyingly horrible happens to Bush or someone close to him. Something that could have, one day, been healed thanks to the wonders of stem cell research. That'd be fucking poetic as hell.

I won't wish anything on people close to him - well, other than Jeb; I wish Jeb would get some horrible, extremely painful, slow-wasting disease with no treatment - but I wish Dubya would get hit by a meteorite or something like that. Preferably with the impact also taking out Cheney.

[Noah Johnson]

Of all the possible things he could have used his 1st veto on, this should have been at the bottom of the list. Why not veto all the pork barrel spending or other BS? While I understand his moral objections (and think money has absolutely nothing to do with it), I disagree with his reasoning here. I'm glad that the govt is still funding non-fetal stem cell research, and research on existing lines, and that there's no ban on private reaserch into fetal stem cells, but they really should take off this 1 limitation. I hope they get the 2/3 majority needed to overturn it. They just need to convince a few more folks...
While I generally agree (for once!), his moral objections are complete bullshit. If he actually meant a single word he said about embryos being living beings, he'd be mobilizing troops to IVF clinics. By vetoing this legislation, he's saying that these embryos, rather than being used for research, should be thrown in the trash. That's what happens to them, as everyone knows. His posing with those "Snowflake babies" is also bullshit. He's not mandating that embryos be adopted, he's mandating that they be thrown in the garbage. From a logical standpoint, there's absolutely no way to justify this as a moral position.

So if you say you "understand" the moral objections, your logic has got to look something like DC Universe continuity.

[Samurai]

While I generally agree (for once!), his moral objections are complete bullshit. If he actually meant a single word he said about embryos being living beings, he'd be mobilizing troops to IVF clinics. By vetoing this legislation, he's saying that these embryos, rather than being used for research, should be thrown in the trash. That's what happens to them, as everyone knows. His posing with those "Snowflake babies" is also bullshit. He's not mandating that embryos be adopted, he's mandating that they be thrown in the garbage. From a logical standpoint, there's absolutely no way to justify this as a moral position.

So if you say you "understand" the moral objections, your logic has got to look something like DC Universe continuity.
We generally agree here, so let's not get to fighting.

But he's not mandating anything. Bush just doesn't want tax-payer funds to go toward creating new stem cell lines. Private funds, which make up the majority of the money anyway, are perfectly free to create new lines. His reasoning is that while there is no major moral objection to non-fetal stem cell research (which the govt does fund), and nothing can be done about existing stem cell lines, many tax-payers may not want their tax money being used to experiment on "pre-born children", tearing them apart to create new stem cell lines. Better to leave that to private funding to decide if they want to do that. I can see where he's coming from, but I happen to disagree, because I believe human life starts with the brain, not a few cells.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Yet another loss due to the " Faith Based " decisions in the Oval Office. People...when ya get into office your supposed to think about the good of the American people as a whole. Not wonder if your gonna go against your religion and make decisions based on that.

So for the record: God is ok with us going to War as Bush has said. But hell , save some people from some crippling illnesses that could be stamped out and God will be pissed ?

3 more years G.W and the dog and pony show ends.

[GammaPro]

I normally don't do these kinds of threads. I normally don't hate on the President. I normally like the guy, but this quote (regarding his veto of stem cell federal monies) was just too much.

"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush said. "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect."

I think of the war in Iraq and just hang my head.

And, on the subject of stem cell research, all I'll say is this...

"I'm sorry, Mr. Johnson. We know you're in agony. We know every day is a struggle, but we're more interested in making sure an embryo that doesn't have the nerves or brain stem to even REGISTER suffering is protected."

[Mike Smith]

I was actually going to bring this up too.

My thought is the solution should consider both federal and private sector options. Legally, stem-cell research should be pursued and funded, but the sources of cells restricted as to not create a black market.

Why not have both government funding and private sector funding for the research? In a matter of life or death, and advancement of science, it seems Bush is precluding advancement of science in the name of personal morality, which for him is surely based in Christianity.

I myself am a devout Christian, but when analyzing and considering points of law, I try to put that aside. As such, I feel that though abortion may be morally wrong, legally it is RIGHT and must remain by US law.

My considerations extend similarly for embryonic stem cell research. As a Christian, the thought grives me. As a scientist as well as a citizen of a country with specific laws, I do have a responsiblity to not let my religions beliefs necessarily override my national responsibility.

There is a such thing as balancing morals, as everyone somewhat does, and then not being objective at all and flat out denying things based on opinion.

Considering Congress' makeup, it seems many of them had to make the same considerations as myself in order to vote to expand funding for embryonic stem-cell research. My question is why is Bush denying their desirded and debated provision?

My thought is that he is posturing for the GOP's 2008 presidential run (trying to give his "boys" a touch with the Biblebelt, as they did in his last win) or/and he's not willing to overlook his Christianity to consider what is best for everyone.

The reasoning in either case is wrong.

[Jack Zodiac]

I'm gonna' look like a real fucking schmuck for saying this given the death penalty thread the other day, but, well... it's sensible.

How he can protest abortion and stem cell research on moral grounds, yet continue to support the death penalty without blinking an eye is beyond me. All of that aside, however, I agree with Mike on funding from the private sector. Not only does it make sense, but at this point, it's the only way to advance the research.

[Daniel Lewis]

Certain scientists and talking heads need to quit politicizing the embryonic stem cell issue and start using adult stem cells.
-Adult stem cells have been tested successfully on humans, with positive results, and have been used successfully for decades. ESCs, on the other hand, haven't yet made it past the animal testing stage, and it will take years before certain problems in using them can be overcome.
-You avoid any kind of moral quandary.
-You avoid the exploitation of women that would arise if large-scale research on embryonic stem cells were to occur.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Bush really didn't do this for political reasons I think. He did this for religious reasons and all. Which is ironic considering he feels God forced him into the Iraq War . But here to cure people of diseases....No.

John Stewart can really make you laugh at how some disconected some of those against this issue are. One pulls up an Eagle and an Egg and does the silliest damn thing I can suspect a member of Congress to do. Then he does the classic " The embryo has life and would tell you to not kill it ! "

John Stewart in great humor " If a human embryo talks to you then....it needs to be saved ! "

[Sean T Collins]

How he can protest abortion and stem cell research on moral grounds, yet continue to support the death penalty without blinking an eye is beyond me.
I am one of those people . That murderer who is on death role chose his actions. Nobody forced him to pull the trigger . Nobody forced him to stick that knife in somebody’s flesh. Nobody forced him to rape and strangle some chick for his own perverse amusement . The death penalty is the consequence for there actions and most know that when they committed what ever sick act they did . All an unborn child ever did was dare to inconvenient there parents with there existents. That’s why I whole heartedly support the death penalty. I am still undecided about the abortion issue but it does bother me that people kid themselves into believing that its just goo they are displacing and not a potential life that they are killing. I do think embryos should be ok to use because thousands of embryos are created and not used anyways in birth clinics.To sum it all up I just believe in personal responsibility .

[Mike Smith]

My thought is the solution should consider both federal and private sector options. Legally, stem-cell research should be pursued and funded, but the sources of cells restricted as to not create a black market.

Why not have both government funding and private sector funding for the research? In a matter of life or death, and advancement of science, it seems Bush is precluding advancement of science in the name of personal morality, which for him is surely based in Christianity.

I myself am a devout Christian, but when analyzing and considering points of law, I try to put that aside. As such, I feel that though abortion may be morally wrong, legally it is RIGHT and must remain by US law.

My considerations extend similarly for embryonic stem cell research. As a Christian, the thought grives me. As a scientist as well as a citizen of a country with specific laws, I do have a responsiblity to not let my religions beliefs necessarily override my national responsibility.

There is a such thing as balancing morals, as everyone somewhat does, and then not being objective at all and flat out denying things based on opinion.

Considering Congress' makeup, it seems many of them had to make the same considerations as myself in order to vote to expand funding for embryonic stem-cell research. My question is why is Bush denying their desirded and debated provision?

My thought is that he is posturing for the GOP's 2008 presidential run (trying to give his "boys" a touch with the Biblebelt, as they did in his last win) or/and he's not willing to overlook his Christianity to consider what is best for everyone.

The reasoning in either case is wrong.

[pennywisdom]

More wrong-headed, harmful actions by Bush.

Not exactly surprising, but still sucky.
I agree.

As it is, he's throwing a bone to the seriously nutty wing of the pro-lifers in his base by vetoing a bill for a cause that is, if I recall correctly, MUCH more popular than he is.
Stem cell research needs support, so I hope you're right in saying it's a popular cause.

My concern: Is this motion indicative of a larger fear of stem cell research, or is it, as you seem to be suggesting, just a token granted to the pro-lifers in his camp?

What I'm wondering is whether or not stem cell research has a chance to move forward after Bush leaves office and (hopefully) the Federal Government isn't controlled by neo-con policy.

[Noah Johnson]

I myself am a devout Christian, but when analyzing and considering points of law, I try to put that aside. As such, I feel that though abortion may be morally wrong, legally it is RIGHT and must remain by US law.
Let's take a moment to respect the moral integrity necessary to take this kind of stand. It's never easy to balance one's beliefs that way, but it's the right thing to do.

[Sean T Collins]

I myself am a devout Christian, but when analyzing and considering points of law, I try to put that aside. As such, I feel that though abortion may be morally wrong, legally it is RIGHT and must remain by US law.

.
Legally it was right to own slaves at one point as well :( .

[Samurai]

I agree.


Stem cell research needs support, so I hope you're right in saying it's a popular cause.

My concern: Is this motion indicative of a larger fear of stem cell research, or is it, as you seem to be suggesting, just a token granted to the pro-lifers in his camp?

What I'm wondering is whether or not stem cell research has a chance to move forward after Bush leaves office and (hopefully) the Federal Government isn't controlled by neo-con policy.
Stem cell research is moving forward. Adult stem cell research has reached the human testing phase, and has both federal and private funding. Embryonic stem cell research is newer, and only in the animal testing phase, but it enjoys a lot of private funding, as well as federal funding. In fact, there is only 1 limitation on federal funding (not allowed to create new embryonic stem cell lines) and no restriction on adult stem cell research. The majority of stem cell research funding is private (55% for-profit research, 10% philanthropic, only about 35% is federal), so a limitation only on federal funds for just 1 thing really isn't doing a lot. I still disagree with it, but all this talk as if Bush is actually preventing stem cell research is silly, when in fact he's the 1st President to actually fund it (research has been going on many years, and adult stem cells have been used since at least 1990, while the 1st embryonic breakthroughs were in 1998, which means Clinton could have chosen to fund it, but didn't).

[Spike-X]

I am one of those people . That murderer who is on death role chose his actions. Nobody forced him to pull the trigger . Nobody forced him to stick that knife in somebody’s flesh. Nobody forced him to rape and strangle some chick for his own perverse amusement . The death penalty is the consequence for there actions and most know that when they committed what ever sick act they did . All an unborn child ever did was dare to inconvenient there parents with there existents. That’s why I whole heartedly support the death penalty. I am still undecided about the abortion issue but it does bother me that people kid themselves into believing that its just goo they are displacing and not a potential life that they are killing. I do think embryos should be ok to use because thousands of embryos are created and not used anyways in birth clinics.To sum it all up I just believe in personal responsibility .
What does personal responsibility have to do with stem cell research?

[JeffreyWKramer]

How he can protest abortion and stem cell research on moral grounds, yet continue to support the death penalty without blinking an eye is beyond me.

An astounding number of supposed conservative Christians do the same thing. An increasingly-vocal number of conservative Christians, however, are starting to call them on this inconsistent stance, and the Catholics have done so pretty consistently for a long time.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Certain scientists and talking heads need to quit politicizing the embryonic stem cell issue and start using adult stem cells.
-Adult stem cells have been tested successfully on humans, with positive results, and have been used successfully for decades. ESCs, on the other hand, haven't yet made it past the animal testing stage, and it will take years before certain problems in using them can be overcome.

Of course, what you're missing here is that a) nobody is saying don't use adult stem cels, and b) there is potential for embryonic stem cells to hopefully provide results beyond anything either achieved or believed theoretically possible with adult stem cells.

Nice way to try to spin things toward the religious-extremist end of things, but it's also good to give a nod to reality.

[Sean T Collins]

What does personal responsibility have to do with stem cell research?


Not so much stem cell but the other two subjects I was talking about. Like I said I think stem cells should be used from left over embryos at birth clinics .

[Wesley Dodds]

Well, yes, Clinton did embryonic fund stem cell research. I think the point Samurai is trying to make is that funding wouldn't have kicked in until after Bush took office. That's why he said "actually" -- because he thinks funding something isn't funding if you're not going to be President anymore next year. Which is, to be sure, a novel concept.

I'm just making this point because people reading "Clinton could have chosen to fund it, but didn't" might think, well, that Clinton chose not to fund it.

In the 2004 debates Bush made the claim that he was the "the first president ever to allow funding". Not true, he's the 2nd.

What we're talking about are changes to the guidelines that would allow federal funding. And that happened in August 2000.

What Samurai doesn't mention is that the Gingrich congress banned any experiment that involved the creating of destroying of an embryo. This is the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. So the Clinton administration had to find a workaround. And they did in January January 1999 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/dispatches/050413.html):

Federal funds, obviously, could not be used to derive stem cell lines (because derivation involves embryo destruction). However, she [Harriet Rabb] concluded that because human embryonic stem cells "are not a human embryo within the statutory definition," the Dickey-Wicker Amendment does not apply to them. The NIH was therefore free to give federal funding to experiments involving the cells themselves (what Republican Senator Sam Brownback [Dalek!], of Kansas, called a bit of "legal sophistry.")

So Samurai's claim is the complete opposite of the truth and I look forward to his response where he says "Gosh, Wes, I said something about Clinton that was completely false. Although I dislike many things about Clinton, I was wrong on this point."

[Loren]

I wish Dubya would get hit by a meteorite or something like that. Preferably with the impact also taking out Cheney.

President Hastert?

[Dreadstar]

President Hastert?

I think the lefties would deserve it...















...kidding!

[Noah Johnson]

Legally it was right to own slaves at one point as well :( .
I fear you quite missed Mike's point. This is the United States, where we do not legislate religious belief into law. It's not a matter of what is currently legal, it's a matter of what kind of basis we have for our laws. Does that clarify it at all?

[J Dog]

Well, we all know that Bush is afraid of science that isn't for military purposes. This ain't a big surprise.

But, then again, why is it that he didn't veto some other acts that screwed us up a bit...

[Wesley Dodds]

Sidney Blumenthal made the excellent point in his column (and I'm annoyed this wasn't my first observation, honestly) that this represents a serious slackening of Bush's power.

Signing statements are part of it, true. But the real reason Bush didn't veto was that the discipline in the Republican party had been iron. Business was conducted within the caucus with the Democrats completely shut out.

They wouldn't even go outside their majority to pass stuff. So, if the Republicans couldn't do it with just Republican votes, they wouldn't do it.

This is how America turned into a parliamentary state when nobody was looking, by the way.

But with Bush's coat tails gone, the party's discipline has broken. Bush vetoed something for the first time -- because for the first time, he had to.

[Mike Smith]

Certain scientists and talking heads need to quit politicizing the embryonic stem cell issue and start using adult stem cells.
-Adult stem cells have been tested successfully on humans, with positive results, and have been used successfully for decades. ESCs, on the other hand, haven't yet made it past the animal testing stage, and it will take years before certain problems in using them can be overcome.
-You avoid any kind of moral quandary.
-You avoid the exploitation of women that would arise if large-scale research on embryonic stem cells were to occur.

While research should continue with adult lines as well, embryonic is better due to matters of differentiation.

Question: Where would the moral quandary come from? What is it based on?

[Dreadstar]

Question: Where would the moral quandary come from? What is it based on?

Mike, to some, an embryo is considered alive. Let's just accept that and move on without embroiling the thread in the usual pointless abortion claptrap.

[Jack Zodiac]

An astounding number of supposed conservative Christians do the same thing. An increasingly-vocal number of conservative Christians, however, are starting to call them on this inconsistent stance, and the Catholics have done so pretty consistently for a long time.

Yep. And again, it's a logical paradox. If, in your mind, you can justify killing a man on death row, yet can't condone killing an unborn child because it's amoral to take a life, you've just stumbled upon a paradox of your own logic. Just like all of the people you've described.

And it works both ways. I don't agree with the death penalty, because I think it's amoral to take a life, yet I'm fine with abortion because I don't consider an unborn child a life yet. However, it's still an act of taking and preventing the continuation of life, so I'm in a logical paradox myself. So... I suppose it can't really grind me that badly considering I'm as guilty of it as Bush.

[Mike Smith]

Mike, to some, an embryo is considered alive. Let's just accept that and move on without embroiling the thread in the usual pointless abortion claptrap.

Of course, I'm fairly religious myself and think our official definition of life needs tweaking. What I don't understand is how my moral code, based in religious beliefs, should override the law or science? When it comes to public affairs, I'm a scientist, and put my personal religious beliefs on the backburner.

I feel Bush should be doing the same in office. That's what I wanted to get at, not an abortion argument.

[Samurai]

So Samurai's claim is the complete opposite of the truth and I look forward to his response where he says "Gosh, Wes, I said something about Clinton that was completely false. Although I dislike many things about Clinton, I was wrong on this point."
Complete opposite of the truth? No. Clinton never actually funded embryonic stem cell research. He held meeting, conducted studies, etc. Had he not been blocked by the congressional legislation, he might have actually funded some research, though he also rejected some suggestions from the NIH that human embryos could be specifically grown for the purposes of experimentation. In August of 2000, with the new definition of stem cells created by Dr Rabb, he allowed the NIH to begin accepting applications for federal funding, but the article fails to mention how long that application process takes until the money starts flowing. It is very likely that no money actually went out until after Bush took office, meaning Bush was the first President to actually fund embryonic stem cell research, even if he was 4 months short of being the 1st President to allow applications to be submitted for the funding of embryonic stem cell research.

[Wesley Dodds]

Complete opposite of the truth? No.

Well, you did say that "(research has been going on many years, and adult stem cells have been used since at least 1990, while the 1st embryonic breakthroughs were in 1998, which means Clinton could have chosen to fund it, but didn't)."

Now, I infer from that statement that you didn't know (before my post!) that Clinton was "blocked by the congressional legislation". The More You Know.

So at least you've backed down from your "Clinton could've if he really wanted to" position.

As I pointed out in my previous post, a President funds something when he approves spending. That's how the word is normally used.

To be honest, I'd love to see someone on Fox News say "Clinton didn't fund embryonic stem cell research, he just said we'd approve their applications!"

It is very likely that no money actually went out until after Bush took office, meaning Bush was the first President to actually fund embryonic stem cell research

Look, don't take my word for it, take dictionary.com's:

Fund
tr.v. fund·ed, fund·ing, funds

1. To provide money for paying off the interest or principal of (a debt).
2. To convert into a long-term or floating debt with fixed interest payments.
3. To place in a fund for accumulation.
4. To furnish a fund for: funded the space program.

Basically, you're using the word "actually" to try and get around the meaning of the word "fund". But funding is, well, funding. Funding is the act of furnishing a fund. All all funds were furnished in August 1999 when the laws changed. All Bush has done since then is block and restrict funding that had already been approved.

They both furnished funds. Clinton furnished them in the sense of approving funding. Bush furnished them in the sense of his administration gave scientists bags of money with dollar signs on them.

I think the only intellectually honest position is to say that they both funded it. The only way of getting around this is to narrow the word "fund" -- without telling that you're using the word "fund" in a special sense, of course. Becuase if you actually told them you were working from your own special meaning of the word fund you'd just get laughed at.

[Sean T Collins]

I fear you quite missed Mike's point. This is the United States, where we do not legislate religious belief into law. It's not a matter of what is currently legal, it's a matter of what kind of basis we have for our laws. Does that clarify it at all?
Being uncomfortable with abortion Has nothing to do with religious beliefs. In fact if I actually believed in god I would probably be fully behind it because then I would believe that they would just end up in heaven anyway. Instead my none faith has made me realize that this is it. There is nothing else and unless you have horribly hurt somebody you should have the chance to experience this life to its fullest. Who is anybody to deny somebody the right to exist who has not even opened there eyes yet. To experience what it means to be aware of our surroundings and our universe around us. You could make the argument that slavery was more morally and ethically right then denying people the chance to exist at all.

[Paul McEnery]

Of course, I'm fairly religious myself and think our official definition of life needs tweaking.
Piece of cake.

It's not life you're thinking about, it's a sentient being.

Before the 23rd week, a foetus doesn't have the bits in place to be a sentient being. 8 cells sitting in a petri dish certainly don't have the bits in place to be a sentient being.

Now you can get sentimental about those 8 cells having the potential to grow into a sentient being, and indeed, under the right circumstances, they might.

However, those circumstances are massively artificial, and would require an equal tinkering with nature as using them to preserve the life of an already sentient being.

[Sean T Collins]

Its either a potential life or its not .Like the embryos at birth clinics that are not used. They are not going to be used ever. So there is no potential of life there

[Paul McEnery]

For them as wants the facts: http://stemcells.nih.gov/

[Sean T Collins]

Where do stem cells come from?
Pluripotent stem cells are isolated from human embryos that are a few days old. Cells from these embryos can be used to create pluripotent stem cell "lines" —cell cultures that can be grown indefinitely in the laboratory. Pluripotent stem cell lines have also been developed from fetal tissue obtained from fetal tissue (older than 8 weeks of development).

thanks for the link.

[Paul McEnery]

Its either a potential life or its not .
Yeah yeah.

Every sperm is sacred.

8 cells in a petri dish could be implanted in a womb. Or they could be used in research. Or they could be separated and turned into two groups of 8 cells which could be planted in a womb.

They could be derived from a sperm meeting an ovum. They could be derived, god help us, from my liver (I suppose). They could be taken from a placenta or from an umbilical cord. They could be adult stem cells.

They could all be grown into a human being. Or they could be used in therapy. Take your pick.

The point is, all the procedures are artificial. The potential life issue is a red herring.

[Sean T Collins]

Yeah yeah.

Every sperm is sacred.

8 cells in a petri dish could be implanted in a womb. Or they could be used in research. Or they could be separated and turned into two groups of 8 cells which could be planted in a womb.

They could be derived from a sperm meeting an ovum. They could be derived, god help us, from my liver (I suppose). They could be taken from a placenta or from an umbilical cord. They could be adult stem cells.

They could all be grown into a human being. Or they could be used in therapy. Take your pick.

The point is, all the procedures are artificial. The potential life issue is a red herring.To say I think every sperm is sacred is just liberal propaganda. I listen to it everyday on air America radio . If them cells as you like to call it are grown. Meaning if the sperm is implanted and the process of life is started by it growing or changing then it is a potential life. My belief is that it has more rights then a murderer on death row. Ask somebody who was almost aborted if they feel like they did not have the right to live like the rest of us . I masturbate every night with a clear conscience .

[Paul McEnery]

To say I think every sperm is sacred is just liberal propaganda. I listen to it everyday on air America radio . If them cells as you like to call it are grown. Meaning if the sperm is implanted and the process of life is started by it growing or changing then it is a potential life. My belief is that it has more rights then a murderer on death row. Ask somebody who was almost aborted if they feel like they did not have the right to live like the rest of us . I masturbate every night with a clear conscience .
http://uplink.space.com/attachments/402507-DoNotFeedTroll.jpg

[Sean T Collins]

The potential life issue is a red herring.
No its just people who feel like everybody should have a chance to experience this wonderful , crazy , frightening thing called being self aware .

[Sean T Collins]

http://uplink.space.com/attachments/402507-DoNotFeedTroll.jpg
The cleverness is astounding . Bravo dear Paul bravo. Did you find that image on google ?

[Mike Smash!]

Every sperm is scared.
Every sperm is great.
Every sperm that's wasted,
Makes God quite irate.

[Samurai]

http://uplink.space.com/attachments/402507-DoNotFeedTroll.jpg
Just say no to Leprechans with a roast turkey on a stick? How does that fit into this thread?

[Hiromi]

Yep. And again, it's a logical paradox. If, in your mind, you can justify killing a man on death row, yet can't condone killing an unborn child because it's amoral to take a life, you've just stumbled upon a paradox of your own logic. Just like all of the people you've described.

And it works both ways. I don't agree with the death penalty, because I think it's amoral to take a life, yet I'm fine with abortion because I don't consider an unborn child a life yet. However, it's still an act of taking and preventing the continuation of life, so I'm in a logical paradox myself. So... I suppose it can't really grind me that badly considering I'm as guilty of it as Bush.

Its only a paradox when you oversimplify it into a strawman. The view is that an innocent life doesn't deserve to be snuffed is not equal to a person who took the life of another(or vice versa really). I don't find it any more of a paradox than people who oppose the Death Penalty but favor abortion, or right to an abortion. Point of View's a powerful thing when it comes to deciding you position.

[Paul McEnery]

Just say no to Leprechans with a roast turkey on a stick? How does that fit into this thread?
You know, there's a reason people put up with your shit. :D

[Paul McEnery]

Every sperm is scared.
.
Paging Dr. Freud!

[gary bolt]

http://uplink.space.com/attachments/402507-DoNotFeedTroll.jpg

Another way of putting that is...

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i14/mornagary/fishing_trolling.jpg

[Sean T Collins]

I wanna have fun to



http://www.republicansareidiots.com/images/jumping_the_shark.jpg

[Paul McEnery]

I wanna have fun to

C'mon. You're being asked to play nice with the other kids.

You're being encouraged to play nice with the other kids.

Sure, you're being slapped around for not playing nice with the other kids. But that's what you get.

You've still got the play nice option in front of you.

[Sean T Collins]

C'mon. You're being asked to play nice with the other kids.

You're being encouraged to play nice with the other kids.

Sure, you're being slapped around for not playing nice with the other kids. But that's what you get.

You've still got the play nice option in front of you.
Could you please clarify what the playing nice option means ?
Does it mean I cant state my belief’s if “the click” does not agree with them
What exactly does it entail. If you want to p.m me the details feel free to do so .

[Spike-X]

Come on, Paul. Sean's improved a hell of a lot from where he was a week or so ago. give him some credit.

[Sean T Collins]

Come on, Paul. Sean's improved a hell of a lot from where he was a week or so ago. give him some credit.
I really have made an effort to be more careful in how I word things as to not come off “all knowing” or like I am trying to “dare" somebody to disagree with me .

[Mike Smith]

Piece of cake.

It's not life you're thinking about, it's a sentient being.

Before the 23rd week, a foetus doesn't have the bits in place to be a sentient being. 8 cells sitting in a petri dish certainly don't have the bits in place to be a sentient being.

Now you can get sentimental about those 8 cells having the potential to grow into a sentient being, and indeed, under the right circumstances, they might.

However, those circumstances are massively artificial, and would require an equal tinkering with nature as using them to preserve the life of an already sentient being.

That's fair enough for legal purposes. As a scientist, I'd like to see a definition sculpted more to describe a life process. That is, without outside interference, a group of differentiating and developing cells will continue a life cycle, thus termed as life. More simple than the definition I'm looking for, but the gist of it...

By the way, Schwarzeneggar made a good move today by approving a $150M loan for Cali's stem cell institute.
Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/07/20/schwarzenegger_gives_150m_stem_cell_loan/)


For anyone interested in learning more about stem cell research, here are two more sites you should look at;

http://www.advancedcell.com/ Advanced Cell Technologies site. Everyone should take a look at it.

http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/WhatsNew/Glossary.htm Very simplified glossary.

[Phoney Bone]

I am a big supporter of stem cell research (both adult and embryo) and I think this veto is the best thing to ever happen for it.

Whenever the goverment is "in charge" of something, they just fuck it up... no matter which animal appears on majority party's campaign stickers.

Get stem cell research (and space travel, for that matter) into the private sector where actual work will be done instead of government work.

[Sean Walsh]

Maybe he's against this stance because some friend of his is a telepath and every time a fetus is destroyed he gets a severe psychic backlash upon the loss of another preborn life.

He's not doing it for the drug companies or Karl Rove or Halliburton....HE'S DOING IT FOR HIS POSSIBLY IMAGINARY OR POSSIBLY REAL TELEPATH FRIEND, PEOPLE!!!!

[Dreadstar]

Yeah yeah.

Every sperm is sacred.

8 cells in a petri dish could be implanted in a womb. Or they could be used in research. Or they could be separated and turned into two groups of 8 cells which could be planted in a womb.

They could be derived from a sperm meeting an ovum. They could be derived, god help us, from my liver (I suppose). They could be taken from a placenta or from an umbilical cord. They could be adult stem cells.

They could all be grown into a human being. Or they could be used in therapy. Take your pick.

The point is, all the procedures are artificial. The potential life issue is a red herring.


That's my take on in a nutshell, yep.

[Dreadstar]

I really have made an effort to be more careful in how I word things as to not come off “all knowing” . . .
Dude, even if you were to TRY to go the "all knowing" route around here, you'd have to take a number and get in line.

I think the waiting list is up to about a year, now.

[Calybos]

The Daily Show suggested that the medical industry re-title "embryonic stem-cell research" to something where collateral damage is perfectly okay:

The War on Terror-ble Diseases!

With such enemies as Osama bin Parkinson's, and Rajan al-Zheimer's, who would dare quibble over the sacrifice of a few embryos?

"When the paralyzed people stand up, we'll stand down."

[Ray R.]

Dude, even if you were to TRY to go the "all knowing" route around here, you'd have to take a number and get in line.

I think the waiting list is up to about a year, now.

Due to my omniscience, I knew you were going to type that.

So, so predictable....

[Noah Johnson]

Whenever the goverment is "in charge" of something, they just fuck it up... no matter which animal appears on majority party's campaign stickers.

Baloney. Government-funded research programs have a superb track record. They're where you get the science done that isn't necessarily going to show a profit this quarter. As to space travel, why are we pretending that there's something stopping private enterprise from doing it? They can do all the space travel they want, and a number of companies have tried. What's their success rate again? Zero, if I recall?

[SOGG]

Baloney. Government-funded research programs have a superb track record. They're where you get the science done that isn't necessarily going to show a profit this quarter. As to space travel, why are we pretending that there's something stopping private enterprise from doing it? They can do all the space travel they want, and a number of companies have tried. What's their success rate again? Zero, if I recall?

Point of info. Spaceship X was private. And putting a man on the moon instead of sattelites in orbit seems very, very useless. I get your point though. (Afforementioned sattelites.)

[Noah Johnson]

Point of info. Spaceship X was private.
Fair enough. I'm not familiar with Spaceship X, though, and Google's not much help. Got any information about what it was?

[Adam Crocker]

Whenever the goverment is "in charge" of something, they just fuck it up... no matter which animal appears on majority party's campaign stickers.

Get stem cell research (and space travel, for that matter) into the private sector where actual work will be done instead of government work.

Except that the government wouldn't really be in charge of anything. They'd be providing funding to research institutions across the country but they wouldn't really be directing the research itself.

Which brings me too...

Stem cell research is moving forward. Adult stem cell research has reached the human testing phase, and has both federal and private funding. Embryonic stem cell research is newer, and only in the animal testing phase, but it enjoys a lot of private funding, as well as federal funding. In fact, there is only 1 limitation on federal funding (not allowed to create new embryonic stem cell lines)... The majority of stem cell research funding is private (55% for-profit research, 10% philanthropic, only about 35% is federal), so a limitation only on federal funds for just 1 thing really isn't doing a lot.

Actually the existing lines that have been approved for use by the Bush administration aren't all that much good. Most of them are contaminated with mouse cells (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6604) and thus aren't very useful for research. So only 22 of the 78 lines are now available (even Bill Frist (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0607180030jul18,1,1195702.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true) is echoeing this statement!) The same story points out that five of the 22 available lines are difficult to grow and separate.

And while 35% is not the majority, it's a pretty large chunk of funding, so claiming it isn't doing a whole lot based on numbers alone is a pretty hard claim to back up.

Now the actual effects of which? That's another matter altogether but I'm still trying to get proper information together on that one but my searches haven't been all that successful.

[SOGG]

Fair enough. I'm not familiar with Spaceship X, though, and Google's not much help. Got any information about what it was?

That's because it's actually Spaceship One. Partially funded by Richard Branson. I guess I must have been thinking of chromosomes and placed an X where there should have been a 1.

here's the wiki entry on it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_1)

[Noah Johnson]

That's because it's actually Spaceship One. Partially funded by Richard Branson. I guess I must have been thinking of chromosomes and placed an X where there should have been a 1.

here's the wiki entry on it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_1)
Cool. Still much, much, much less cool than the achievements of governmental space programs, but cool nonetheless. I wish them all success.

[Iangould]

When the original decision was taken by the US government not to fund embryonic stem cell research I was highly critical of it.

However, (take a seat here folks I'm abotu to shock you all), I'd say that subsequent events have vindicated that decision.

There were always clear ethical concerns about ESC research but the potential benefits seemed to justify proceeding.

However, since then ESC research not just in the US but elsewhere has faield ot live up to its early promise and adult stem cell research (not to mention stem cells extracted from placenta and umbilical cords) have proceeded better than expected.

On balance, i'd probabyl still support ESC research but saying that the Bush administration is single-handedly holding back science and inflciting unnecessary suffering just don't seem justified.

[Samurai]

When the original decision was taken by the US government not to fund embryonic stem cell research I was highly critical of it.

However, (take a seat here folks I'm abotu to shock you all), I'd say that subsequent events have vindicated that decision.

There were always clear ethical concerns about ESC research but the potential benefits seemed to justify proceeding.

However, since then ESC research not just in the US but elsewhere has faield ot live up to its early promise and adult stem cell research (not to mention stem cells extracted from placenta and umbilical cords) have proceeded better than expected.

On balance, i'd probabyl still support ESC research but saying that the Bush administration is single-handedly holding back science and inflciting unnecessary suffering just don't seem justified.
Once again, just to correct 1 point, the Bush administration has NOT forbidden federal funds from going toward ESC research. He has only forbidden federal funds to be used to create new stem cell lines. As I understand it, working with existing lines, even new lines created through private funds, is perfectly fine.

[Wesley Dodds]

I think Ian's talking about the decision in the early 90s.

Update: On 2nd reading, I'm not sure if he's talking about the ban on funding for creating and destroying embryos, Bush's temporary hold on all funding (until August 2001) or Bush's compromise non-compromise, which was an effective ban on government funding for some kinds of research because of problems with the stem lines he allocated.

Of course, it's early in research when government funds are useful. When an area is developed and applications have began to manifest, then it's very easy to get private funding.

[Iangould]

No, Wes, Samurai was right.

(Now there's a statement I bet no-one thought they'd see from me.)