Fertility Treatment equals Murder

[michaeledward]

The first veto in President Bush's time in office might very well be a veto of a bill to expand funding for research into embryonic stem cell research.

Five years ago, President Bush issued an executive order prohibiting any research facility from using federal funds to conduct such scientific research, except for stem cell 'lines' that were in existance at that time. When he made the announcement of the signing statement, he claimed there were more than 70 available stem cell 'lines' available. There never were that quantity of stem cell lines available. Some of which was available has become contaminated. Currently, there are approximately 20 stem cell lines that meet the Presidents' criteria for research.

The United States Senate approved recently a bill that circumvents the Presidential executive order, and makes federal research funding available for embryonic stem cell research.


The Presidents spokesperson, Tony Snow, today, in clarifying the President's assertion that he would veto the legislation stated,

"The simple answer is he thinks murder's wrong. The president is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something living and making it dead for the purposes of scientific research."

​

Many embryos are available in fertility clinics today, that could be made available to scientific research, if the federal funding ban was removed. These embryos were created by couples undergoing fertility treatments. They are byproducts of scientific, and procreative endeavor. These embryos are stored, or destroyed.

One must wonder if a frozen embryo qualifies as 'something living', as asserted by Presidential Spokesperson Snow.

Are the couples undergoing fertility treatments guilty of murder if they do not inplant each and every one of those embroys into the woman for potential development?

 

[Kacey]

One must wonder if a frozen embryo qualifies as 'something living', as asserted by Presidential Spokesperson Snow.

Are the couples undergoing fertility treatments guilty of murder if they do not inplant each and every one of those embroys into the woman for potential development?

This is, indeed, a very interesting question. As long as the embryos remain frozen, they are technically viable (key word here is "technically"); however, they cannot be made fully viable unless carefully thawed and properly implanted - which brings up the question of embryos that are improperly implanted (regardless of where fault lies in that; many embryos simply don't implant properly). However, the parents can choose to have unwanted embryos destroyed - which brings us back to the question you asked. If a life is in abeyance, how long can it remain in abeyance before it is unrecoverable? Does that then constitute murder? Negligent homicide? What about mechanical failure - say, a power outage that lasts long enough to thaw the embryos improperly?

The other issue this brings up is that the president is supposed to respond to the will of the people - not put his personal beliefs above the people. According to this evening's news (Denver Channel 9, an NBC affiliate) 70% of the population wants stem cell research to be continued and expanded - nonetheless, our elected president is allowing his personal morals to override the will of the people, to the extent of making this the only veto of his presidential career. This concerns me as much as the stem cell issue itself.

 

[Cryozombie]

"The simple answer is he thinks murder's wrong. The president is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something living and making it dead for the purposes of scientific research."

So... The brainiac is banning all animal testing as well, which may lead to the death of the animal?
​

 

[ginshun]

What a stupid way to convey the administrations stance on the issue.

Although, it is a stupid stance that doesn't make any sence anyway, so go figure.

 

[Kane]

More info here: http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5171907&nav=1TjD

I was for the veto too, but for totally different reasons. I think stem cell research should remain in the private sector. It would be far more effective researched by private scientific institutions.

But I totally disagree with Bush's reasons to veto the bill. Embryos are not equal to fully developed humans. Sure we started our lives as an embryo. We started our lives as a single cell too. You can extend the same logic to sperm and eggs as we did one time start out as a separate sperm and egg.

 

[7starmantis]

Kane, I agree that the research should stay in the private sector. There are 50 - 60 "private businesses" ready to launch on this research. Why shouldn't we conserve the billions from the government and let the private sector fund the research as well?

7sm

 

[Brother John]

I agree that the research should be left in the hands of private institutions, but I DO think that it could use a good dose of funding from the Govt. !

I disagree with the President's stance on this.
100%
:idunno:

Your Brother
John

 

[michaeledward]

Currently, there is nothing preventing private institutions from performing stem cell research.

Currently, any facility that recieves government funding, can not use any of that funding to facilitate any portion of stem cell research. Even if that facility recieves only a portion of their funding from the federal government. That means, government dollars can not be used to pay for the electric lights used on the same labratory floor where stem cell research is taking place. That means, any labratory that performs stem cell research has to purchase - with trackable private sector dollars - duplicate tools (beakers, test tubes, centrifuges, etc) to perform the research.

All citizens should be interested in preventing waste in government. This policy, as written, is a monument to wasteful practices.

But, the President's spokesperson said that removing cells from a blastocyst is equivilent to murder.

 

[ginshun]

And never mind the fact that most of the extra embryo's that would be used in stem cell reasearch are just thrown away if they are not used for it.

Putting them in a bag marked "biohazard" and throwing them in a dumpster is not murder, but using them for potentially life saving research is?

Ahhhh now that is a great mind at work.

 

[Ray]

Many embryos are available in fertility clinics today, that could be made available to scientific research, if the federal funding ban was removed.

Does that mean they could also be made available to scientific research if people who were in favor of embrionic stem cell research would invest in this (sure to be) highly profitable and richly rewarding endeavor?

 

[fireman00]

Its odd that no major media outlett has made mention that President Bush and almost every religion are pro stem cell research using umbilical cord cells - which, from what I have read, have shown to be just as effective as cells harvested from embryos.

Also, with the HUGE amount of money to be made in the stem cell research arena one would think that the pharmacutical industry would be pumping millions of dollars into research.

 

[michaeledward]

Does that mean they could also be made available to scientific research if people who were in favor of embrionic stem cell research would invest in this (sure to be) highly profitable and richly rewarding endeavor?

Yes.

Currently, I understand, there are over 400,000 embryos in fertility clinics that quite probably going to be discarded. (Are all those parents murderers?)

Its odd that no major media outlett has made mention that President Bush and almost every religion are pro stem cell research using umbilical cord cells - which, from what I have read, have shown to be just as effective as cells harvested from embryos.

Also, with the HUGE amount of money to be made in the stem cell research arena one would think that the pharmacutical industry would be pumping millions of dollars into research.

While there is research potential available from umbilical cells, and adult stem cells, most scientists feel that there is a major difference between embryonic stem cells and other types of stem cells. These two links, convey those differences. One of these links is from the American Associate of Universities.

http://www.aau.edu/research/StemCell3.26.01.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/19/defending-bushs-veto-rove-grossly-distorts-stem-cell-science/


The State of California, on a ballot initiative, has funded stem cell research to the tune of three Billion dollars. The problem is that research facilities can not 'co-mingle' funds from private sources, and federal government. This prevents many facilities from performing research.

 

[Brother John]

But, the President's spokesperson said that removing cells from a blastocyst is equivilent to murder.

Well....I don't know about all that....but I do know that THOUSANDS of Embryo's are discarded every Week in fertility clinics across the country.
I see NO reason why these same Embryo's can't be used for this IMPORTANT research.
It doesn't make sense to me. Especially in light of all the lives it could quite possibly change!

Your Brother
John

 

[michaeledward]

But, the President's spokesperson said that removing cells from a blastocyst is equivilent to murder.

Well....I don't know about all that....

Brother John, the way your response begins, it almost seems as if your are saying that my portrayal of the incident is hyperbolic. I am often, on this board, accused of acting only out of 'hatred of Bush'. Such accusations can not be refuted by reason or logic, so they are left unanswered. I do my best to focus on the policies of the Administration.

To help you learn about what the President has said - through his spokesperson, here is a link to the transcript from the July 18, 2006 press briefing by the President's spokesperson. This is the reason provided for the justification of the first VETO of President Bush's time in office.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060718.html

The President believes strongly that for the purpose of research it's inappropriate for the federal government to finance something that many people consider murder; he's one of them.

 

[shesulsa]

Well....I don't know about all that....but I do know that THOUSANDS of Embryo's are discarded every Week in fertility clinics across the country.
I see NO reason why these same Embryo's can't be used for this IMPORTANT research.
It doesn't make sense to me. Especially in light of all the lives it could quite possibly change!

Your Brother
John

Hey, did you hear that Frist is actually opposing Bush on his stance here? I was shocked as I rather thought Frist to be a puppet of the right ... but I remembered that he's a puppet of a particular industry ...

 

[Brother John]

Brother John, the way your response begins, it almost seems as if your are saying that my portrayal of the incident is hyperbolic. I am often, on this board, accused of acting only out of 'hatred of Bush'.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060718.html

Nah....
I just honestly don't know about that. Literally....therefore I can't comment on it one way or the other.
Some people on my side of the fence (Republican/Christian) equate this with abortion. ((AND I'm NOT turning this into an abortion is murder debate)) SO...when the Right makes claims about this being akin to murder they automatically gain the blind support of those who oppose abortion.
NOT a fair tactic.....and I'll call that like I see it, even if it comes from other Republicans.

Believe it or not, I do try to be fair.

Have a good one.
STAY OUT OF THE HEAT!!!!!!!!! You guys in the North East seem to be getting smacked w/this heat wave....
DRINK WATER....



Your Brother (sitting in a room with AC AND three fans)
John

 

[TimoS]

The President believes strongly that for the purpose of research it's inappropriate for the federal government to finance something that many people consider murder; he's one of them

Not that it comes as a surprise to anybody, but that doesn't really make sense. I'm sure many people consider e.g. the war in Iraq to be murder or death penalty (or is that even carried out by the US federal goverment? I'm sorry, I'm not really familiar with your system)

 

[michaeledward]

Nah....
I just honestly don't know about that. Literally....therefore I can't comment on it one way or the other.
Some people on my side of the fence (Republican/Christian) equate this with abortion. ((AND I'm NOT turning this into an abortion is murder debate)) SO...when the Right makes claims about this being akin to murder they automatically gain the blind support of those who oppose abortion.
NOT a fair tactic.....and I'll call that like I see it, even if it comes from other Republicans.

Believe it or not, I do try to be fair.

Have a good one.
STAY OUT OF THE HEAT!!!!!!!!! You guys in the North East seem to be getting smacked w/this heat wave....
DRINK WATER....



Your Brother (sitting in a room with AC AND three fans)
John

Well, in terms of ethics, it seems an odd decision.

We've all heard the argument ... there is a fire in the clinic, in this burning clinic there is a two year old baby, and a petri dish with a dozen embryos .... which do you grab on the way out? Now change the argument from a theoretical two year old baby to, oh, say Mohammed Ali or Michael J. Fox - who gets pulled from the burning building?

But, we can even look at the argument from another point of view, that makes it odd ... Is it 'Christian' to impose your beliefs on those who do not believe as you do?

The decision to prevent all federal dollars from being used to persue this research to satisfy the demands of a portion of federal tax payers, certainly seems to be imposing a set of beliefs held by a minority upon the entire citizenry. (And I believe in a Republic, not a Democracy - minority rights must be protected).

Examine the ramifications of that thought-pattern. In its logical extention, a 'Christian' nation would have a moral obligation to wage war on an 'Islamic' nation, and convert them to Christianity. And suddenly, we are making Ann Coulter sound reasonable.

And that just can't be ... if there is an argument that makes Ms. Coulter sound reasonable, there must be a false premise in there somewhere.

 

[michaeledward]

It seems that White House Cheif of Staff, Josh Bolton's appearance on "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert has brought about a change of heart in the White House; or at the very least some back-peddling.

Here is the original quote

I don’t think that’s the choice that the president is presented. What the president has said is that he doesn’t want human life destroyed.
Now, you may consider that insignificant. But the president has said. And you have had in a number of cases the snowflake babies where some of those fetuses have in fact been brought to term and have become human beings. The president believes strongly that for the purpose of research it’s inappropriate for the federal government to finance something that many people consider murder. He’s one of them.
Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that this government did make available already existing lines — to get back to your question — there were existing lines. The most recent figures we have are 2004. But 85 percent of all the embryonic stem cell research on Earth was conducted using those lines.
There is nothing that makes embryonic stem cell research illegal. It simply says that the federal government will not finance it.
As you know, there are ongoing efforts in some states, including, I think, California and Massachusetts, to use state money for it. And I dare say if people think that there’s a market for it, they’re going to support it handsomely.
The simple answer is he thinks murder’s wrong. And he has said.

This is a transcript from Meet the press ... but watch the video to see a very uncomfortable Cheif of Staff. The embryonic stem cell discussion begins on page 5 of this transcript.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13904922/

And lastly, here is the quote from Yesterday's press breifing by Spokesperson Snow. Although, he hedges a bit ... 'he guesses' that h overstated the position.

Notice how he pivots to the previously disclaimed fact about 'adult stem cells' .....

Q Tony, not to bring up last week's news, but the issue of whether embryonic stem cell research is murder came up yesterday on "Meet The Press." You said, I believe, last week that some people regard this as murder and the President is among them.

MR. SNOW: Yes, well, I --

Q Does he believe this is murder?

MR. SNOW: I overstepped my brief there, and so I created a little trouble for Josh Bolten in the interview. And I feel bad about it. I think there's concern. The President has said that he believes that this is the destruction of human life.
Let me make another point that's related to that because one of the real shames was that the United States Senate had an opportunity -- I'm sorry, the United States House had an opportunity to pass a bill that would have enabled researchers to proceed along the lines that everybody wants.
As you know, a lot of the debate about embryonic stem cell research has to do with pluripotency, the ability of a cell to adapt to repair or deal with diseases and injuries to any part of the body. There is research ongoing that opens the possibility that one might be able to take adult stem cells and make them pluripotent. Please do not -- you're the former science reporter, so you will understand the vagaries of that far better than I.
But the President certainly does not oppose the promise of pluripotency. The President certainly does not oppose stem cell research. But he does find -- he does have objections with spending federal money on something that is morally objectionable to many Americans. I will go ahead and apologize for having overstated -- I guess, overstated the President's position.
But on the other hand, I think it's also important in this particular case to keep in mind that when it comes to stem cell research this President was the first to allow the use of embryonic stem cell lines, and he has supported -- more than any other President in American history -- research into embryonic stem cell research, and also shares the goals that Senator Frist and others have talked about, which is unlocking the possibility of pluripotent cells.

Q So the President does not regard this as murder?

MR. SNOW: He would not use that term.

Q And the corollary question that's emerged on Capitol Hill and elsewhere is, if it is murder, do you then shut down in vitro fertilization clinics?
MR. SNOW: Well, as you know, they're not the recipients of federal money. We're talking about the use of federal money on things that are morally -- that some people consider morally objectionable and some do not. It's one of the reasons why, as you know, we've allowed states to make their own decisions. And a number of them have, in terms of assigning states resources for use in embryonic stem cell research.

So, 70% of the country is in favor of this research. Mainstream Republicans don't like to be called 'murderers', and its an election year.

 

[crushing]

One must wonder if a frozen embryo qualifies as 'something living', as asserted by Presidential Spokesperson Snow.

Are the couples undergoing fertility treatments guilty of murder if they do not inplant each and every one of those embroys into the woman for potential development?

All this talk about it being murder seems silly to me. Murder is the illegal killing of person. Like as in an abortion, execution, or self-defense; if the killing isn't illegal, it isn't murder. That is pretty cut and dry.

However Michael, you do raise a good point about the ethics that may be involved with cryopreservation. Legally, people in the embrionic stage of life are destroyable when in their natural habitat, why should they be less destroyable when in a petri dish?

The needs of the many. . .