gnomic says:

This sums up the argument pretty well

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-shaw/its-a-discarded-blastocy_b_25427.html

Leland says:

President Bush is way off base on this one. His opposition to stem cell research is mystifying to me. All he is going to accomplish is putting the United States behind the curve in medical research.

chris says:

I voted for Bush twice, but I’m telling you, I’m sorry I did. More and more his close-mindedness has cost this country money, lives and respect.

This one make no sense. The ONLY veto he has decided to exercise.

MrLumberjack says:

What is an Embryo?

Why would it be necessary to destroy these embryos if they’ve been able to keep em on ice? Can’t keep em on ice any longer? Are Andy’s facts straight or slanted?

And trying to say:
“The bill was not a blanket endorsement of wanton stem-cell research. All it would have done is permitted couples to donate the embryos they have had for fertility treatments to researchers rather than let them be destroyed”.

That’s just being dishonest. When the bill is about “expanding federally funded embryonic stem cell research”. It’s about federal funding, and not much more than that, at this point. You’re real war will come when there’s pressure to place an outright ban on embryonic testing.

The major sticking point is that embryos are fertilized human eggs, which by the way, is when most scientists and the general population agree is when life begins. And since 68% of women feel that there abortion shouldn’t be legal, as the law stands today, president Bush is just listening to the will of the people.

As it stands now, there are 65 lines of stem cells for researchers to toy with. Enough to keep science happy for the short-term. These eggs won’t end up destroyed as Andy pointed out earlier.

Andy, where does your information come from?

Andrew says:

First of all, my name is Andrew. I realize you think that using a nickname is demeaning and all, and that’s how you people operate. Whatever blows your hair back, Jack.

Second, it’s your facts that are incorrect, Jack — or, shall I say, slanted. Here’s the relevant text of the bill from THOMAS (emphasis mine):

(b) Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:

(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.

(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.

(Here’s a PDF, if you want a nice printout.)

Seems pretty clear to me — it’s not simply about “expanding federally funded embryonic stem cell research.” Of course, if you’re trying to scare people into thinking otherwise, that’s how you would spin it, right, Jack?

Where does your information come from, Jack? GOP talking points? For example, where does that “68 percent” nonsense come from?

In fact, more than three-quarters of Americans say abortion should be legal, and about 60 percent say Roe v. Wade should not be overturned.

I would think you people had learned: If something isn’t true, repeating it over and over doesn’t change that.

greyrat says:

Sadly, Andrew, as an aside the Catholics seem to think that these donated in vitro human embryos should all be carried to term (or maybe frozen until the end times, when they’ll all go straight to Limbo — not heaven — since they’re not baptized). I mean, they don’t understand that “otherwise discarded” means there all going to be murdered. But using them for stem cell research is evil.

There’s sarcasm in there — somewhere…

MrLumberjack says:

First of all Andrew, I am sorry for butchering your name. I’m just a visitor of your blog that want to respond from time to time.

Now back to the topic. After further review of your link you’ll notice that the “Stem Cell Enhancement Act of 2005” is a proposed amendment to the “Public Health Service Act”. Hopefully everyone already knew that. So when looking at the text of the “Stem Cell Enhancement Act of 2005” and placing the text into the proposed area of the “Public Health Service Act”, the result is exactly what I said before “expanded government funding for embryonic stem-cell research”. Go ahead cut and paste.

Yes… the wording in the Stem Cell Enhancement Act of 2005 says “it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded”. I agree that “discarded” sounds a lot like “destroyed”, which you’ll notice is exactly what you used in your blog.

In the legal world of legal documents I would like to officially announce that there is more than a tiny difference between the two words. So what you think sounds “clear as a bell” to you. Sounds a bit more like a “malfunctioning hearing-aid noise” among the lawyers and justices of the USA.

As for my 68% nonsense, it’s not from the same place you got your info from. But since you believe in the results from the link you posted; I’ll use that information because it only turns my 68% point into a 60% point. “The vast majority of Americans continues to believe that abortion should remain available in at least some cases.” notice the choice wording again… then read on… “Seventy-seven percent of respondents said abortion should either be generally available, or available but with stricter limits than now.”

Now look at the results from my point of view. Your link says that 38% believe that abortion should be legal with stricter limits and 22% believe that it shouldn’t be legal at all. Add 38% and 22% and you get 60%. Can there be vastly different conclusions from the same study? Could there be a slant?

MrLumberjack says:

Now I’d like to focus on the “destroy” issue Andrew brought up. By asking a few questions.

Could “discarded” a term used when an embryo has been put on “ice”?

If an embryo can be put on ice, why would scientists want to destroy them? Especially if the laws can change to allow federal funding sometime in the future. Wouldn’t they want to keep the options open?

Can an embryo, that faces destruction, be donated to create a privately funded stem-cell line?

Can stem-cells be derived from other sources other than embryos?

Did you and everyone alive today start out their lives as a cluster of cells?

If a human being is destined to die, does science have the right to experiment on them?

Is the “embryonic period” a step in the development of life?