Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, Jun 20, 2007.

  1. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #1
    w-post

    Bad idea. One can say life starts at conception, fine. But I don't equate living breathing humans with a speck of dividing cells.
     
  2. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #2
    I have to agree with Bush on this one (trust me, I don't do this often).

    ...With recent discoveries (esp. regarding amniotic fluid stem cells) embryonic stem cells may not be necessary (or even the best).

    Of course, we're not sure yet, so more research has to be done, and depending on what this research yields, my opinion may change.

    Ironically enough, the government's refusal to support embryonic stem cell research has furthered development in this field, in that scientists are looking for (and finding) plausible alternatives.
     
  3. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #3
    Do you have a source for that? The last I read, there was no comparable substitute for embryonic stem cells.
     
  4. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #4
  5. trebblekicked macrumors 6502a

    trebblekicked

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #5
    it'd be great if amniotic and adult cells could do what embryonic ones do, but even as the sciam article says, they don't (the article specifically said amniotics were half way between embryonic and adult). here's hoping they can come up with something that erases the moral no man's land from the equation. scientists don't want to unnecessarily pilfer embryos anymore than fundies want sick people to suffer.

    at least the private sector and the states are free to pursue the research if they see fit. it's not time for outrage yet, but it'd be nice to see congress build a veto-proof majority on this.

    oh, and for the record i have to agree with obeygiant on this one, something else which doesn't happen often ;)
     
  6. Macnoviz macrumors 65816

    Macnoviz

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Roeselare, Belgium
    #6
    So instead of sacrificing life to save other lives, Bush opts to sacrifice lives sans saving other lives.

    I'm no scientist, but this doesn't seem logical. It doesn't even seem Christian.
     
  7. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #7
    I agree with you.

    Unfortunately, there is no logic in politics.
     
  8. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #8
    If I posted what I'm thinking you'd have to ban me for foul language!!!
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    One more nail in the 2008 coffin for the GOP. Bush just handed the Democrats a huge stick with which to pound on any Republican who did not vote in support of ESCR during the upcoming campaigns. This is overwhelmingly supported by average Americans, who are frankly getting sick of the anti-science bent of the GOP.

    Of course, Bush couldn't do anything different. If he had, he would have lost support among the remaining 29% of the dead-enders in the GOP, and his numbers would have dropped even further. He's in a position where nothing he does will gain him more support in the polls than he will lose from his base. He might have gained a point or two from independents, but he would have lost half a dozen points from the fundies. Such is the box he's allowed Rove's politics to put him in.
     
  10. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #10
    Now I'm agreeing with Obeygiant? I agreed with Swarmlord last week... what's the world coming to? Have I been in Texas that long?

    For those who oppose embryonic stem cell research because it destroys embryos: Are you against IVF procedures since many unused embryos are discarded? There's no reason that I can see, that an embryo that would be otherwise discarded should not be made available for research. Now I would be against farming of embryos but it should not be difficult to regulate the sources.
     
  11. GeeYouEye macrumors 68000

    GeeYouEye

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2001
    Location:
    State of Denial
    #11
    I agree with Bush on this, which makes it only about the 4th thing he's done since 1/21/01 that I agree with. Not because of his so-called ethical concerns (though I believe he's sincere about those), but because funding it would have been unconstitutional, and the runaway Congress needs no be slapped in the face like this more often.
     
  12. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #12
    "Destroying human life in order to save human life is unethical."

    vs

    "We're fighting them over there [we're destroying human life] so we don't have to fight them over here [in order to save human life]."

    Excuse me if I don't find his ethical reasoning up to snuff.
     
  13. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #13
    change "reasoning" to pandering and your sense of logic will be satisfied.
     
  14. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #14
    I hope Bush gets (edit: has) a genetic illness that would only be cured with more stem cell research.

    take that you dying old fart!
     
  15. Stella macrumors 604

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #15
    IVF is still legal in the states!!!????

    Does Bush know that a lot of the embryos that are used in Stem Cell research are left over from IVF and ear marked for destruction?

    Work that out?!!!!!???

    If stem cell research is banned then so such IVF. IVF produces a lot of wasted embryos that will be destroyed...
     
  16. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #16
    You can add subverter of the Constitution to your list.
     
  17. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #17
    It's an interesting dilemma. It makes the most sense to utilize embryos that will be discarded anyway, but on the other hand, funding research for some embryos and not others doesn't make much sense. ...And you're right: regulating the sources is key, but that may not be as easy as it sounds, and could promote unethical practices among scientists to obtain more funding.

    As far as this issue is concerned, it was much easier and less complicated to just say no to all embryonic stem cells.
     
  18. trebblekicked macrumors 6502a

    trebblekicked

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #18
    not sure throwing your hands up and saying "this is too complicated" is the right way to deal with this. kind of defeatist, isn't it?
     
  19. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #19
    well, no, because the thing about defeatism is that... well, if you think of any argument as a sandwich, then... no, wait... this is hard.

    i give up.
     
  20. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #20
    How did you draw that conclusion?
     
  21. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #21
    We're dealing with genetics and DNA stuff here. Since every DNA fingerprint is different it should not be that hard to trace a particular strain of stem cells back to the clinic they came from and possibly even back to the parents. Records are kept on all of the trial implantations for trying to get pregnant, so it really should not be that hard to verify that the embryos were created with the hope of conception but the couple either got pregnant as many times as they wanted and have decided to have no more kids, or they couple was found to be completely unable to have children.

    As for funding some embryos and not others the government makes that distinction all the time. Why do they provide grants for some research and not others? Why do they provide scholarships and grants for some students but not others? Claiming it's unfair not to fund all embryos that will be discarded is a poor argument.
     
  22. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #22
    I like how the thred title and many of the posts seem to forget this point. Bush didn't "veto stem cell research." He vetoed the provision of federal funds to develop new lines.

    Eric's line isn't that hard to see. When you regulate sources, there is a temptation to hide/disguise your sources. In any industry, there will always be a temptation to get around the rules - sometime malevolent, simetimes noble. Either way, the temptation is there. Complete blockae is the best solution. Additionally, with stem cells, the only way to check to see if a particular line was developed under source guidlines would be to:

    Which unfortunately begins to comprimise the pricacy interests of the parents (genetic sources may be a less charged term) of the embryo. Suddenly you are demanding a DNA database of every person that goes through whatever approved procedures to produce the stem cell embryo - be it the IVF couple, the lady getting an abortion, etc.

    For what it's worth, I'm in a situation where I am torn. I think that using the IVF embryos to develop new lines is an opportunity to make the best out of a bad situation and I don't believe that aborted fetuses should be available for use. But, the risk for manipulation may be too strong - at what point would temptation cause scientists, lab heads, university presidents, to be willing to bend the rules in an area where rules are not for breaking?
     
  23. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #23
    Which in practice is a veto of embryonic stem cell work. It stops all public labs doing work because they can't use reagents/equipment/staff/facilities/buildings/etc that have been paid for in part by public grants and scholarships - i.e. all of it. You position is akin to saying Bush didn't veto driving, he just won't let you use roads any more.

    Sorry it is still hard to see. Why would a scientist want to get around the rules? The couldn't publish the work nor could they go public with it at all. What on earth would they have to benefit by doing so besides destroying their careers and ending up in gaol? They'd have no chance of getting grant money ever again or commercialising their research.

    The best solution for what? As it stands you've got this morally bankrupt position where it's ok if it's not federal money or if it's done outside your country. It couldn't be more illogical. You're even still happy for your scientists to use the knowledge gained by overseas research to further their own federally funded research. Complete blockage is far from the best solution - it's absurd.

    For any work on any tissue from human sources it first must be approved by a human bioethics committee under the satisfaction that it falls within federal guidelines (and institutional guidlines which are often tougher). Every single person that participates in your research must sign an informed consent form saying that they understand the procedure to acquire their tissue and the ultimate uses of said tissue. They are also informed that those records may be handed to the relevant authorities (FDA, police etc) as requested, however their privacy will be assured by all parties. Again it's a criminal offense to contravene these regulations. These records are also up to audit regularly. Using private or federal funds the process is exactly the same.

    You've a real phobia of reproductive technolgies don't you? IVF has helped of couples have children whom weren't able to do so because of really simple, minor disease. Those 3 million+ IVF children are even having happy, healthy children of their own now. IVF isn't a bad situation for anyone. In fact those parents that persue IVF are more dedicated than anyone to have children.

    For starters embryonic stem cells don't come from aborted foetuses so I'm not sure where you're coming from here. But if a mother wants to donate her foetus to research/medical education why shouldn't she be able to? Remember that the vast, vast, vast majority of abortions are naturally occuring and there's still a lot of research to be done to decrease that frequency. What happened to your idea of an opportunity to make the best out of a bad situation?

    I can assure you there's no temptation to bend the rules at all due to the risk to one's career and the criminal prosecution. Theres plenty of places in the world to carry out this research/collaborate that are happy to pay top dollar to attract good researchers. All the US stance is doing is causing delays and needlessly inflicting pain and suffering to people whom they could be helping.
     
  24. gauchogolfer macrumors 603

    gauchogolfer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    American Riviera
    #24
    Exactly what about funding stem cell research would have been unconstitutional? The government funds all kinds of scientific research in many disciplines, why would this be any different?
     
  25. Macnoviz macrumors 65816

    Macnoviz

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Roeselare, Belgium
    #25
    Indeed, they even fund tons of research designed to kill or incapacitate (DARPA) so in what way would that be constitutional?
     

Share This Page