Redstate

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

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

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

And for what it is worth: I dissent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He's fought abortion at every turn, right?

He has?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other line is more correct:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the point I am making is right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where's the flaw in the argument?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great comment, streiff; just one thing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is the point that you have made here.

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

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

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

liver cells have 138 pairs of chromosomes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In trevino's contest for today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This reference says tetraploid in the liver

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ultimately this debate is about money.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Polyploidy

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

    This usually arises from:

        Fertilisation by two sperm (dispermy)

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

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

Or am I just missing something?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I clarified, it may only be tetraploid.

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

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

Here's an example:

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

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

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

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

Clearly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here --->

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then try again.

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas:

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

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

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

von

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

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

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

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

In the future I will curb my sarcasm.

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

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

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

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

But the nature of the sarcasm.

No worries, then.

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

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

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

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

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

      Support        36.0%

      Oppose         51.6%

      Don't know     10.5%

      Refused         1.9%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(changed tally format to make it easier to cut

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

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

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

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

No Restrictions            11              14

Ease Restrictions          42              41

Current Restrictions       24              24

No Funding At All          19              14

Unsure                     4                7

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

      .

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

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

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

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

Unsure 8

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

      .

  Should Should Not Unsure  

              % % %  

 5/10-12/05 53 37 9

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

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

      .

  Favor Oppose Unsure    

                % % %    

 10/14-15/04 50 36 14

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

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

  Favor Oppose

 ALL 64 28    

 Republicans 53 38

 Democrats 74 20    

 Independents 67 26

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

Source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or so I thought.

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

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

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

As for your last line,...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reason ESC proponents want more taxpayer money, like they got from California's Proposition 71, is because the Pharms and other private research groups are putting their money where the real promise and proven results are: Adult Stem  Cells.  Just as we throw taxpayer money at windmills when nuclear power has proven its worth and potential, so we are doing with stem cell research.

You're right about polyploidy. Nifty. I had no idea. I understand that mosaicism may be more common that is usually thought, too.

from anyone, I should only welcome it and see why people feel the way the do, as I would contend all republican's have a good point and one that needs to be address as it's more important to me that your are an American than a republican.

If I ever portrayed myself as being reluctant to hear you or anyone else and their concerns and opinions it was done without malice, contention or judgement and without knowing. I honestly do not remember stating anything to that effect.

I understand why the above statement could be taken in a hurtful way. But, I believe there is a difference between sincerity and some form of mockery. I think it's rude to name people, go after peoples beliefs or try to make them feel trite or below me or anyone else for that matter.

From the beliefs that you've posted that you  hold, I can, and am able to totally understand your concerns, in almost every case I would disagree with an abortion. I think legislatively however (which is what I am attempting to write), I believe it will be a very, very difficult thing to accomplish, and if done anyways, It cannot see it lasting very long. I would hope you could see that it's only an opinion that only time can reveal the outcome of, but I do believe a social venue will end up being far more productive in the long run. I know for you to consider that venue cannot be done under the beliefs you hold, I do not hope nor desire to change that inside you, that is part of you, and a part to be respected and listened to. I have no intention to truly change your mind, not my goal, only to offer something I honestly believe would be helpful. For you, I will retract the advise and wish you the best of luck in your endeavor.

appears to be quite common.

And have you heard about microchimerism, stem cells from babies being found in the mother?  

http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/content/abstract/118/8/1559

Very strange.  It has even been postulated that these stem cells present in women account for some of the differences in men's and womens' susceptibilities to different diseases.

Of course it may also cause auto-immune disease.

The point I was making, when rendered snark-free, was that I think winnowing wheat from chaff is a positive for a political party.

If you don't know what you stand for then you are only what you are against. That is where the Democrats are today and quite honestly I don't think having one of the major parties devoid of ideas serves the nation well.

We social conservatives may not prevail in this intra-party argument. I hope we will, but we may not. But that does not mean the fight was not worth fighting. The anti-abortion plank has been in the Republican platform since 1976 and we've done well for ourselves electorally.

And while I may pray for a sweeping decision that eradicates Roe and Casey, I won't be disappointed when it doesn't happen. Rather we will keep chipping away at the abortion industry edifice and I am confident I will live to see the day that we will all look back in horror and astonishment that we ever gave this practice the patina of constitutional protection.

I'm no scientist either, but this is what I've gleaned from the books: Although Embryonic stem cells are capable of differentiating into other types of cells, they are much harder to work with, have immune system rejection problems, cause tumors and are very difficult to convert to specific cell types. In addition, researchers have found found some types of Adult stem cells that may be able to turn into any kind of desired cell, and they have already created a process by which adult cow skin cells are converted to heart cells.  

Scientists have studied both ESC and ASC for 50 years, so they probably have reached some conclusions about which type of stem cell is most promising.  Right now, there are around 80 treatments and 300 clinical trials using ASC's, compared with 0 for ESC's.

When Bush supported limiting embryonic stem cell research to existing lines of cells, he was excoriated for "opposing" stem cell research and standing in the way of those who would heal.  Now that these stem cells have been made available for research, CREDIBLE scientists are complaining about how hard it is to access them and how contaminated they are. Guess we gotta go for the really pure stuff in those embryos over there now.

Would you like to be spared anecdotes?  Me too. Nothing personal here, but spare me Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox, Ron Reagan, and that insipid John Edwards with his trial lawyer travelin' medicine show blather.

Congress' main job is to pass laws.  Bureaucrats and wonks are the one who sit around formulating their policies.

Yea, I could see that coming. Now we frequently separate siamese twins even if it is certain to cost one of them their lives in the case of shared organs. Of course, this is usually a situation where they will both die if we don't, so that doesn't really help. What would happen if one of the twins insisted on separating the other, at the cost of the other's life, without his life being at stake? I don't think there are any examples to work with.

As to individuals, the fact that the word divide is present seems to imply an individual is something that cannot be divided, so up until the viability point, there is one individual involved -- at least from that perspective.

between how corporations and government spends their research dollars.  Corporations, as entities interested in profits, spend money on research that has a reasonably certain to return a profit, or at least a product, in the fairly near term.  Government funded research is more properly focussed on basic research and can be less concerned with producing something to sell (less goal-focussed).  Both types of research are vital to a vibrant economy and we have severely underfunded basic research under this administration.  The research that this Administration does fund tends to be more "corporate" in nature (demanding a "return on investment") rather than "basic".

Nuclear power was a particularly poor example to prove your point.  Commercial nuclear power exists in this, or any other country for that matter, only because of massive public support of basic and applied research in nuclear science, first out of pure love of science, then to build a bomb, then to create a civil nuclear power industry.  Not only that, the industry is propped up by the government by limiting its liability, manufacturig its fuel, training many of its employees, and taking care of its waste.  

1. Assuming that I accept that government funding is ever justified -- and I do, for energy independence and basic scientific research, then:
   
2. I'd be perfectly happy funding both nuclear power and stem cell research.  Indeed, the environmental movement's categorical opposition to nuclear power is but item A in a long list of reasons why I am not a member of the evironmental movement (though, like most, I consider myself an environmentalist).

so up until the viability point, there is one individual involved -- at least from that perspective

But we know that's not the case, in many ways:

Biologically, of course: there are two organisms, as DNA alone indicates; beside DNA, no one claims that pregnant women have two hearts or brains. From this perspective alone, the claim that there is only one biological entity is vacuous.

Philosophically, I agree: an individual cannot be divided. But that an embryonic human requires a womb for sustenance does not mean that there is only one individual. The principle does not work to deny the individuality of the embryo.

is hardly a single movement.  You will find pro-nuclear environmentalists along with the anti-nuke ones.  I consider myself a pretty strong environmentalist and I am ambivalent about nuclear power--I think that the waste issues are solvable but I am not sure that they are economically feasible when the real costs are factored in.  I absolutely despise Greenpeace, PETA, and the ELF.  

has constitutional protection, rather than a Supreme Court review, (I mean at that level) and decision. I think it obvious that trashing a potential life because of a whim or some sincere fear that is simply overblown because of the lack of knowledge and understanding and can be a far reaching and potentially extremely destructive social condition and value system.

You have my 100% support when it comes to trying to reduce the number of abortion as much as legally and morally posible without destorying other fundementals that somehow got attached to this case over the years, (please don't make me eleborate, we would only argue) and I mean in a general sense.

If you ask the courts to decide when life begins, I think you'll find that the courts will not attempt to proclaim to the world throught judicial decision just when that is or how it comes about. They are not Scientist or Physicians, I believe they understand that about themselves.

As far as a sincere and geniune effort to curb the amount as much as humanly possible, I am completely with you, absolute support and my hand in sincere friendship as we both have similar goals inthat respect. But, I will not jeapordize the integrity of our institutions or even put them in a position to be jeapordized for the sake of this issue or any other. I will find another way to accomplish what is by chance, your goal as well (the abortion issue).

Maybe you don't care about the institutions as you care about the abortion issue. Maybe you do not believe that there is any credible threat to any institution. Maybe you think there is, but believe it would be minimal and not worth considering. I really have no idea as I have not had the time to read all your post.

But to me, it is my humble belief that the manner in which this effort is progressing for this issue, I can only foresee for now what appears to me as an increasing and currently dangerous risk to the integrity of the institutions of our Republic. Maybe I am the one over blowing my point of view, but please, I ask you, lend me some support in my endeavor to keep our institutions solid and at least consider the insitution before all other matters, or we very well lose it. They sit on cliffs I believe are extremely well balanced, but a penny's worth of weight on either side could have dire consequences.

Does it make me a lost, unenlightened, uneducated, evil or a poorly intellectual endowed person if I consider my countries institutions and their integrity before all other things when it comes to the mangement of them?

If so, I have much to learn.

Either way, I will always support your efforts to curb these statistics.

Specter is pretty convinced that we should fund stem cell research.  Now that I know where his hair went, I can understand why.  On C-Span just now he used  words like atrocious and scandalous to describe opposing it.

Approximately:

"I don't like veto threats but if a veto threat is gonna come from the White House then the job of the Congress is to override the veto.  Now let me yield to Senator Harkin for some tough talk."

Harkin went on to disparage opponents' performance in High School biology classes.

You gotta love politics!

I'm opposed to clean air and water.

redundent?  

(I have to admit, some of those are damn funny.  My favorite was the choose solar or dignity poster)

that the President doesn't really have the commitment in his eyes about this issue unlike what he is portraying.

It's almost as if, there is so much movement in the Republican party about this issue and widespread support on both sides of the isle for it, it seems they feel it may end up as a major debate topic in the next elections. Secretly I think it's possible that Bush himself supports it, but does not want to alienate certain portions of the voting base that got him elected.

The idealic outcome I see for the Republican's is to offer the legislation and pass it, then have Bush veto it. With that veto he will keep his more conservative base in the party. Then of course over ride the veto, they most likely have the votes.

1. Bush looks great to his more conservative base.
   
   
2. Republican majority seems more moderate publically, possibly and likely attracting swing and Dem votes for Rep's as well as Indy's.
   
   
3. Research materials needed to place American research facilities on the leading edge of global competition, heavy lobby support from pharmaceuticals.

Issue seems like a bonanza if managed correctly.

Anyone care to wager that my scenerio above is indeed what the outcome will be? I have no idea what I could wager, but I suppose I could wagere a donation to RS of say $20 if I am incorrect?

On the other hand if I am correct, the challnger must pay the $20.

I am what you might call a moderate-to-libertarian Republican, and here is why RS is right to endorse President Bush's promised veto of HR 810:

As someone who is pursuing a career in veterinary medicine, I have always had ethical qualms about the harvesting of human embryos for their stem cells.  Even in other forms of research involving lab animals, one of the prescribed duties of veterinarians is to oversee protocols for animal use--that is, to ensure that only the absolute minimum number of animals needed for success are utilized.  Yet in all the huzzahs we have heard for embryonic stem cell research, we have heard nothing about limiting the numbers of embryos created and destroyed via such protocols...all we hear about is "leftovers," as if we are curing Alzheimer's with old meatloaf.

My second point comes from a strictly libertarian point of view.  How many of you lose sleep at night worrying that Harvard University or Pfizer or Novartis might go belly-up if they lose federal funding for their embryonic stem cell research?  Even if we disagree on their motives, Republicans have every right to stand up for private enterprise over curing every problem with the almighty government dollar.  You don't have to be a CONSERVATIVE Republican to think that President Bush is well within his rights to veto this bill...if only he would veto more bills.  I may personally disagree with his religious motivation for his doing so (or at least not fully appreciate it), but it doesn't make his decision wrong.

For the record, embryonic stem cell research has never been banned by President Bush or any other federal authority.  It's the simple Republican principle that not every scientific, technological, or commercial advance has to be validated by having been purchased with taxpayer money.  Furthermore, taxpayers are not obligated to finance any behavior that might be construed as morally or ethically questionable, even by a minority of the population.  Sometimes, I think people don't even realize what they're being spared from--in this case, it's just one more unnecessary expense.  Far be it from liberals to understand or appreciate that idea.

Thus, I wholeheartedly endorse RedState's endorsing of a Presidential veto of HR 810.  Sometimes, we can disagree on the means, but agree on the ends.

"Furthermore, taxpayers are not obligated to finance any behavior that might be construed as morally or ethically questionable, even by a minority of the population."

I guess its time to propose the bills to shutdown funding to NRL, LLNL, LANL, etc...

"How many of you lose sleep at night worrying that Harvard University or Pfizer or Novartis might go belly-up if they lose federal funding for their embryonic stem cell research?"

This type of funding usually goes to Medical Schools and Universities not Companies. Companies are reluctant to sponsor this research because it will not pay off in the short term.  Such long term projects are better funded through governmental programs, think the Apollo program.  

If the current NIH budget of $28.7 billion was not increased but a few crumbs were diverted so that researchers could use ES cells with no additional burden on the taxpayers would that be acceptable?

If researchers are going to work on, and spend money to come up with a cure for a disease shouldn't they be able to pursue the research that will be most effective in actually producing a cure?

Would your vet school similarly try to minimize  the number of animals used for say dissection if the specimens were previously destroyed animals from an animal shelter?

But I don't recognize the acronyms you were referring to (NRL, LLNL, etc.).  I'm sure I'll kick myself and say "duh" when you spell them out.

In case I wasn't clear enough, the operative word in my point was "obligated," that is, taxpayers-not-being...

Bear with me.

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

RedState has a specific mission statement. One of its key points is the protection of human life. This means that RedState's official position on every one of those life issues is and will remain on the side of life. As Augustine notes, there's only really two sticking, non-negotiable points. That's one.

I've known pro-life liberals and moderates. I don't see this as making someone axiomatically conservative.

As to the rest: Have you seen positions taken there?

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

HR 810 merely funds researchers who will use, for potentially life-saving research purposes, people who are already slated for death. One presumes we should fund experiments on death row inmates whose last appeals have run?

The objection is that Federal funding would go to involuntary human research. It is hardly a merely conservative position to oppose that. As I've said numerous times elsewhere, you may have no problem declaring whole classes of humans non-persons, but my faith and my reason balk at that conclusion.

Frankly, the idea that "they're doomed anyway" the cheapest, worst part of this argument. This isn't a slippery slope point: We really don't want to go there.

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

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong -- not least in that I don't see the philosophical difference between killing by dismemberment people already slated for death and making new people, who will be dismembered to death, except that you're doing it to more folks. The difference is numerical, not categorical.

I worry about the slippery slope. But that's not the primary problem here.

I'm new here.  Maybe you guys have better arguments than those I've seen before.  So sure, I'll read some more for a while.

I'll add this thought, though:  President Lincoln did more to end slavery than any activist, even though officially he was only a free soiler, and when he did act he used other, more politically-defensible explanations to cover his acts.  Don't forget that.

NRL: Naval Research Laboratory

LLNL: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

LANL: Los Alamos National Laboratory

My bad, I should have spelled them out.

...

"obligated" - yes, I got your point, but fundmental science is fundemental science, and much of it simply can't or won't be done by 'the free market' because it has no clear near term profit associated with it, either weapons research, fundmental physics  (all 3 of the above examples), or biology.  Stem-cell research is a borderline case, because its possible corporations might just be far-sighted enough to take the risk to spend money on research on it, but its questionable.  I guarantee that if we (the US) keeps pushing medical research out of the public funding arena because it offends certain minority populations, well, either the states will pick it up (e.g. california, good thing), or other countries will (e.g. south korea, bad thing, at least for the US).

[quote]HR 810 merely funds researchers who will use, for potentially life-saving research purposes, people who are already slated for death. One presumes we should fund experiments on death row inmates whose last appeals have run?[/quote]

But I also thought, since so many seem to be justifying their position also on the fact that these embryos are also "unwanted" why don't we fund experiements on the homeless.  Or maybe anyone in a nursing home or institution who hasn't had a visitor or letter in X number of months-apparantly these people are "unwanted" anyway.

Somehow people seem justified in placing a value on life by how much that life is "wanted."

Not a very pleasent road to tread down IMO.

I will try to answer you to the best of my ability:

1.  Good point about most funds going to medical schools and universities.  Nevertheless, I still do not lose sleep over a single university in the United States.
   
2.  If funds within the NIH budget were diverted, but the total budget not increased, would it be acceptable for them to conduct embryonic stem cell research?  In my view, yes.  I said it was ethically questionable, not unacceptable.  And I stand by the belief that usage protocols should be very limiting and strictly adhered to.
   
3.  Shouldn't researchers be free to pursue the most effective cure, even if that cure involves the destruction of human embryos for stem cells?  Yes, but that is somewhat of a moot point, since embryonic stem cells have yet to prove themselves in providing cures.  I know the Islet stem cells in my healthy pancreas can cure someone else's diabetes right now, and the stem cells in my bone marrow can help treat anemia and cardiovascular disorders right now.  I'd be willing to pay for that, and I hope researchers are working on refining those techniques.
   
4.  Would the vet school I will be attending limit dissections if they were done on animals euthanized at an animal shelter?  Yes, Michigan State does in fact do that, as do most others.  In fact, for better or worse, a great deal of anatomy study is done with shared cadavers, computer simulations, and prosections (prepared preserved specimens).  Protocols limiting animal use in research have already been around for a long time...if I may say so, animal researchers set the standard for all medical research in that regard.

If you want to have an up-or-down vote with me on embryonic stem cell research, you may be disappointed to find little disagreement with me; although it's fair to say we may disagree on the reasoning.

I don't expect LANL, NRL or any other National Laboratory to shut down or lose federal funding.  After all, they are NATIONAL laboratories.  On the other hand, I don't see a need to increase funding to a lab that invents weapon systems so that they can suddenly start harvesting embryos for medical research.  If any government lab conducts stem cell research, I would expect that it would be limited to NIH and any other bioscience entity.

I have no illusions that the government will ever stop spending a lot of money on research in all areas of science.  I can only ask in vain that we spend the money wisely and with the proper ethical considerations.  [hold breath]

As for state governments taking up the lead, I say great!  As for researchers in other countries "scooping" us on this issue, I don't know that it would be a catastrophic loss (after all, a great technology means nothing if there aren't wealthy superpowers to buy it), and I'm not even sure we WILL lose that race yet.  All my reservations aside, I still have faith in American ingenuity.

Hey don't sell LLNL short!  They're not just about physics anymore.  They sequenced most of chromosome 19.  LANL did a big chunk of 16 and Oak Ridge did a portion of all 23 chromosomes.

Another big example of something that industry would not have done but that government had to sponsor, the Human Genome Project.

First:

RedState has a specific mission statement. One of its key points is the protection of human life. This means that RedState's official position on every one of those life issues is and will remain on the side of life. As Augustine notes, there's only really two sticking, non-negotiable points. That's one.

And that's fine, although it is strange for you to say that RedState's stance on embryonic stem cell research is compelled because it is "on the side of life"; I'm "on the side of life" and, yet, RedState doesn't seem to be taking my position on this issue.  What you must mean to say is that RedState is anti-embryonic stem cell research because RedState takes the position that an embryo is the equivalent to a human being.  To which I say, "fine."  

Indeed, it's impossible for RedState to take a position on anything won't alienate some Republican (or potential Republican) voter; and I'm all for advocacy, even advocacy that I dispute.  But let's not obscure RedState's position with verbiage about being "on the side of life" -- as if I'm not.

As to the rest: Have you seen positions taken there?

Which is why I prefaced my remark with "I fear ..." and used the future tense (i.e., "will take").

Second:

HR 810 merely funds researchers who will use, for potentially life-saving research purposes, people who are already slated for death. One presumes we should fund experiments on death row inmates whose last appeals have run?

With respect (see below):  What an utterly ridiculous response.  Begged the question, assumed the proposition that you seek to prove, missed the point -- take your pick of logical errors, and these two sentences have them.  

There are two core issues in dispute:  The first is whether embryos that have not implanted, but currently exist in Petri dishes, are the equivalent to a human being.  Your "argument" assumes the answer to this issue.  An argument that requires agreement with its conclusion is, to say the least, not a very persuasive argument.  You can see above for a real dispute on this first, core issue -- which has result in, among other things, my learning that my liver cells have a couple extra sets of chromosomes.  (Which I guess I'm cool with.)

Assuming that you win the first argument, the second issue is whether this bill actually protects life.  I submit that it doesn't really.  And I think the obvious inadequacy of your analogy to experiments on death row inmates proves my point.  It's a crappy analogy, because it presumes that embryos are "guilty" and feel pain or mental suffering -- none of which is true.

If you think that embryos are truly human beings, then the better (but not perfect) analogy (WARNING! GODWIN'S LAW VIOLATION APPROACHING!) is to the Holocaust.  There, the victims were also innocent.  Viewed thusly, your position on HR 810 is much like opposing Nazi experiments on Death Camp victims, but not actually caring all that much about the Death Camps themselves.  In fact, from a certain perspective,* it's worse.  Those who sufferred from Nazi experiments in the Death Camps did in fact suffer more than those who were gassed.  Under anyone's conception, however, embryos do not suffer more from stem cell research than embryos that are simply discarded or ignored.  

Again, following the logic of your position, you should be (1) ensuring that federal funds do not go to fertility clinics in any respect (and I'd support you in that endeavor, by the bye); and (2) making fertility clinics illegal (a position that I'd oppose).  

By the way, Thomas -- pointy language (above) aside -- I respect you a tremendous lot.  You, Trevino, and Streiff have, on prior threads (not so much this one), nudged me closer to your position on abortion than I have been in the past.  That may, or may not, be a comfort to you; the compliment, however, is meant sincerely.

von

*A certain perspective.  I'm not calling Thomas a Nazi, which is why I flagged my own Godwin's Law violation.  And, in so doing, I avoid the ancient codecil to Godwin's law -- i.e., that the first to mention the Nazis loses the argument.

between a NATIONAL lab and a university lab.  Both types do classified and unclassified research, in all fields, often from exactly the same funding sources.  Scientists working at a national lab often go on to work at universities, and the converse.  And as dissention... above pointed out, they do more than just physics (although that really is their forte).  

The one real difference between a place like LLNL and a university is that LLNL and LANL are charged with maintaining the US nuclear weapon capability and thus are involved with design, simulation, and testing of nuclear weapons.  In particular, LLNL is the site of NIF (national ignition facility) which is used for pure physics experiments, inertial fusion experiments, but its primary purpose is for building better simulations of the first few microseconds of a thermonuclear explosion.

2nd point..

if a 'superpower' stops being the primary source of technological innovation in the world, it will shortly cease to be a superpower, or even a power.  

the U.S. ceasing to be the source of innovation in the world (and thus ceasing to be a superpower).  In fact, I didn't even advocate the U.S. not being the source of the particular innovation being discussed in this thread.

I only advocate that this particular innovation be approached more responsibly than many are wont to do, often out of political spite.

I swear to God, of an actual Union Carbide ad published in Scientific American in the Early Seventies.  

The Graphic was of a hand holding a test tube pouring a liquid from a cloud on  a peasant farmer behind a Ox-drawn plow.  The text touts the benefits of Union Carbide's new chemical plant in Bhopal, India and finishes with the tag line:

Union Carbide--A Hand in Things to Come.

You make good points, Von.

As I argued in another post about therapeutic cloning (which I support), I think the stronger Catholic doctrinal argument against these procedures is the Church's general opposition to in vitro fertilization. The catechism says:

"They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children. Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union."

I agree with your point that Thomas' usual arguments in this vein are circular. But I fear your Godwin's law violation doesn't get you very far. Under Catholic doctrine, evil acts are evil acts. "Less evil" is not a big concept with the Church. What Mengele did was wrong in and of itself. Even if every single one of his victims would have died in the death camps anyway, even if they suffered no more as a result of his experiment than they would otherwise, it was still an evil. Even if out of that research some good scientific knowledge came, and all of the victims would have died anyway and suffered the same, it was still an evil, because the act itself was evil.

Likewise with the fertilized eggs being discarded. Once you accept that the fertilized egg is a human being (which to me is a matter of  faith, not something ultimately "provable" by reason and logic), then destroying it yourself becomes an evil, even if that evil would have been done eventually any way, and even if your destruction might bring about some good to somebody else, while the otherwise inevitable destruction would not have.

I saw a very powerful old movie once, maybe Thomas is familiar with it and can remember its name. The sister of this priest is pregnant, but there are problems. He goes to the bedside and, as the nearest relation, must make the decisions for her after she passes out. The doctor tells him that if aborts the baby, she will live. If he doesn't, then both she and the baby will die. Now, I think most of us would tend to say, well, in that case, let's save who we can. But to the priest, the difference is very large. Though both die through inaction, neither he nor the doctor is commiting the sin of murder by killing the baby. Essentially, the death of both is the will of God. If the doctor were to abort the baby, he would commit an evil act, a grave sin and would, essentially, be usurping God's power to decide who lives and who dies. It's a pretty harsh movie to watch, but is, I think, an excellent example of Catholic doctrine in such circumstances.

the add was accurate.  It was just the wrong damn liquid.  

glad I am not Catholic.  How can allowing both die when one can be saved be the "right" choice?  That makes no sense at all unless you are going to refuse any medical intervention.  What if two people are trapped in a burning building and you only have time to save one?  Do you let both burn to death because you don't know which one God would want you to save?

he will veto it to maintain the loyalties of the more conservative members of the Republican party.

In the end the, it will pass will flying colors, I think. but we'll see.

A fetus is considered "viable" when it has developed to a point that removal from the womb might allow survival.  At what point a fetus reaches that point is a scientific question.  Before that point, even if provided with the necessities of life (food, water, air, etc) and medical care, a fetus surviving outside the womb is not possible due to incomplete development.   That is the difference between such individuals as an infant, a disabled person, a siamese twin, etc and an insuffiently developed fetus.  

About what we are arguing about. I went back and re-read the thread and I believe this is in response to the statement viability is a sham.

I believe there is adequate logic and thought to make viability a valid competing philosophy. Obviously conception is another competing philosopy as well as implantation (which I hadn't considered until encountering it in various related threads). For some, birth represents an absolutist that's my body philosopy. I can make a case for age 2, but that's really out there and no one wants to use that.

So were stuck, 'cause we don't share the same philosophical basis. The problem, of course, is that what is at stake is deciding at what point our belief system mandates that a zygote/phoetus/baby gains the status of an individual in our society who society must protect at the expense of significant inconvience and risk to another member of our society against thier will. No other issue forces so heavy a burden upon a specific individual to act in someone else's behalf.

I guess this is why almost every political argument in America winds up being about abortion.

Thank you so much for the comment below.  It brings tears to my eyes.  I am Trey's Dad and we were at the Whithouse and to say it was amazing is a dramatic understatement.  I will always remember these comments when I see that picture.  Thank you!  for more information about our story visit www.jjandtracy.com.  Thanks again.

The President said his speech. He laid out his policy. And then, after the event was over, he held out his arms, and lifted in them young Trey Jones of Houston, Texas. Almost ten months ago, Trey was adopted as an embryo in a freezer. Today, he slept peacefully in the arms of the Leader of the Free World.

"Today, he slept peacefully in the arms of the Leader of the Free World".

Echo, echo, echo, echo, echo.......

You cannot trust polls.  Very few Americans have enough information about the issues to voice their opinions accurately.  (Unfortunately, they frequently vote with the same level of information.)

As evidence, the Republicans got a black eye (apparently) from their legislative action in the Schiavo case, but when a poll was taken asking a generic question about withholding food and water from a person who only needed food and water to survive (with elaboration as to the lack of a "vegetative" state [What an insulting term.  Even if I did not have brain activity, I would not be a vegetable.]), the vast majority said food and water should not be withheld.

It seems apparent to me that the US Govt should not be funding any research that furthers the destruction of embryos.  Just out of respect for the many of us taxpayers who would not choose to spend our money in such a manner.

That was probably the rudest comment I've ever seen here. Normally I'm chastising Thomas and others for talking about banning, but if I had the power I would boot you for that.

JJ is the father of the little boy picked up and held by the President of the United States as he was making a major policy announcement. That's a big day in anybody's life. He came on here to thank this group for their support and to share some of his happiness, making his first post ever on this site, and all you can think to do is make some flippant, insulting comment to him? How would you feel if somebody made such a rude comment to you at the end of one of the biggest days of your own life? You really owe JJ an apology.

This is what I get for writing while putting the last touches on a seventy page opinion letter.

But let's not obscure RedState's position with verbiage about being "on the side of life" -- as if I'm not.

I never said you weren't. You're just a mite off. We have hope for you. :)

HR 810 merely funds researchers who will use, for potentially life-saving research purposes, people who are already slated for death. One presumes we should fund experiments on death row inmates whose last appeals have run?

With respect (see below):  What an utterly ridiculous response.  Begged the question, assumed the proposition that you seek to prove, missed the point -- take your pick of logical errors, and these two sentences have them.

You would be entirely correct were I making an argument. I was not. I was rephrasing your wording to more clearly express my view of the legislation at issue, paralleling your sentence structure for emphasis. Had I intended to engage in an argument, I would have done so. I apologize for the confusion.

There are two core issues in dispute:  The first is whether embryos that have not implanted, but currently exist in Petri dishes, are the equivalent to a human being.  Your "argument" assumes the answer to this issue.

As an initial matter, see above. On a longer note, you and I and I can't imagine how many others have been down this road. My answer is simple: A human is a human regardless of location, regardless of implantation. You may choose to believe that the human in question is not a person (or in your phrasing, a "human being"); so be it. I simply take it as a given that all humans are persons, for a host of intellectual, moral, religious, and historical reasons that -- not to be snide, but to aim for my old foe Brevity -- I hope you and I can dispense with, as we've covered that ground before.

What's not, I think, in dispute, is that the organism is a member of our species. The rest is the argument alluded to earlier.

You can see above for a real dispute on this first, core issue -- which has result in, among other things, my learning that my liver cells have a couple extra sets of chromosomes.  (Which I guess I'm cool with.)

I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't see the point here. Is it that folks don't agree on what makes a person, or that a certain chromosome count skews things?

Assuming that you win the first argument, the second issue is whether this bill actually protects life.  I submit that it doesn't really.  And I think the obvious inadequacy of your analogy to experiments on death row inmates proves my point.  It's a crappy analogy, because it presumes that embryos are "guilty" and feel pain or mental suffering -- none of which is true.

In order:

Why doesn't it protect life?

I have no idea how you draw the proof conclusion.

And:

It assumes nothing of the sort. The point was rather larger: I support a state-imposed death penalty. But I'd go to the wall to stop forced experimentation on death row inmates, for the same reason I'd go to the wall to stop experimentation on the relevant children (or, for your sake, nonimplanted blastocysts), which is to say, They are all imbued with inherent dignity by virtue of their humanity. There is nothing that can deprive them of that, not even their own actions, and the actions we take with regard to them must ultimately take that into account.

Which is my point. We should no more countenance experiments on children -- or embryos, or pick your term -- "slated for destruction" than we should on any other humans apparently irrevocably committed to some sort of externally imposed death.

If you think that embryos are truly human beings, then the better (but not perfect) analogy (WARNING! GODWIN'S LAW VIOLATION APPROACHING!) is to the Holocaust.  There, the victims were also innocent.  Viewed thusly, your position on HR 810 is much like opposing Nazi experiments on Death Camp victims, but not actually caring all that much about the Death Camps themselves.  In fact, from a certain perspective,* it's worse.  Those who sufferred from Nazi experiments in the Death Camps did in fact suffer more than those who were gassed.  Under anyone's conception, however, embryos do not suffer more from stem cell research than embryos that are simply discarded or ignored.

I honestly thought we'd had this discussion before; my apologies for the assumption. Me, I'd ban in vitro fertilization insofar as it creates "surplus" children, especially if those children are slated for termination in one way or another. Period. Is this a popular opinion? Heck no. A winning one? Let's say "deeply unlikely," and leave it at that. People want things, and don't want to be told they can't have them, and at some point, folks became convinced they had a right to children. (Are you sure we didn't have this discussion before?) So, respectfully, the idea that I don't care about the first stage of the killing ground is rather amiss.

As to what the Directors of this site think, well, I'm not putting words in their mouths. Speaking only for myself, the reason why I took issue with Big D was that I think he's wrong on first premise, and that this is a necessary first step to undoing the rather cavalier approach to human life we've taken in our culture and law. That's me. Not them.

Again, following the logic of your position, you should be (1) ensuring that federal funds do not go to fertility clinics in any respect (and I'd support you in that endeavor, by the bye); and (2) making fertility clinics illegal (a position that I'd oppose).

(1) With you.

(2) Against you.

(3) I mean this sincerely: Thank you for spelling "by the bye" correctly. I have one opponent who cannot for the life of him get it right or be consistent (and you think he'd hit the target once with so many different failures). In a weird way, a headache I didn't know I had went away.

By the way, Thomas -- pointy language (above) aside -- I respect you a tremendous lot.  You, Trevino, and Streiff have, on prior threads (not so much this one), nudged me closer to your position on abortion than I have been in the past.  That may, or may not, be a comfort to you; the compliment, however, is meant sincerely.

The compliment is sincerely appreciated, and as I hope you're aware, the respect is reciprocated.

*A certain perspective.  I'm not calling Thomas a Nazi, which is why I flagged my own Godwin's Law violation.

Just so everyone's completely clear on this, I never once would have thought you were.

How are my arguments circular?

I add that I'm aware of no Catholic doctrine that mandates that in a situation in which both mother and child will die if the child does not die, it is illicit to kill the child. I have never claimed to be a theologian or priest, so there may be something I'm missing here, but the prohibition on abortion arises from the prohibition on murder in general, and the Catechism is explicit that the option of mercy is never denied provided a penitent heart, even with the automatic penalty of excommunication for the act of abortion.

We cannot compel martyrdom of anyone. Although good must not be done through evil acts, it is not clear that in a situation in which if the mother will die and take with her the child if the child is not killed, to allow the mother to undertake the act to preserve her own life is an evil act, any more than an act of life-saving self-defense ending in the death of another would be.

Can the doctor perform that abortion? I'm neither a Bishop nor a theologian, but I'd hesitantly say yes. Can the priest? Good question. I'd probably come to the same conclusion. Intent matters. Again, however, these conclusions aren't formal Catholic doctrine; just because I actually bothered to read the stuff, unlike 99% of the people who expound on it, doesn't mean I'm an expert, or should be mistaken for one.

All of this is a needless segue from the larger point: I suspect it was merely to make a larger point, but you made a real hash of Catholic teaching in the course of that comment. We ain't Jehovah's Witnesses, bub.

And as to the rest: Actually, as I've said before, it seems remarkably easy to say that we shouldn't slice and dice humans. It requires no act of faith to reach that conclusion (though I continue to assert that if there is no God, we really shouldn't give two shakes one way or another -- but that's a tangent related to underlying premises for another time).

Suffice it to say that this is not a technically accurate description of the Catholic Church's teachings.

Actually, I think that Augustine's story about the 21 kids who narrowly avoided becoming stem-cell donors by being adopted and, ahem, born does have some relevance to the stem cell debate.  Because that's the decision tree here: do we let the embryos develop normally or do we turn them into stem-cell donors or do we throw them away?  People do adopt these embryos: how do you think those kids got to meet the President?  

And the whole "Prolifers need to shut up and adopt" canard is getting very tiresome indeed.  My parents adopted four children considered unadoptable because of their special needs.  They are not alone.  They are not even uncommon.  But guess what?  They're not publicizing what they're doing because they're kinda busy with the kids.

And if your heart only cries out for select humans, Chloe et cetera, my heart cries for yours.  All are human--or none are.  This "personhood" thing, speaking of tiresome canards, is a condition that we have apparently decided as a society can be conferred on those who meet our criteria.  And that means that not only can some humans be considered nonpersons...any human can be considered a nonhuman, if a sufficient number of other humans decide that such is the case.  Which, no matter how I twist my brain, just doesn't line up properly against ...Endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...

but will offer no apology. My uncle has five children rendered from a frozen eggs, the oldest is 16, and it shows the miracle of science.

I have 2 children from the same methode and 17 others, 13 which are adopted. (3 from El Salvador, 2 from China, 3 from Kuwait, 4 from Iraq and 1 from Mexico. There are hundreds of thousand of children just like them all over the U.S. for more than 2 decades now. There are millions all over the world.

Artificially assisting couples have children is not a new thing for Physicians. When the Prez adopts a program that equally assist all children and actually get results, I will say, "The Echo's have stopped", now we can do whats right for "all" American's as one rather than take an off-the-subject scenerio and try to relate it to some agenda that it has nothing to do with.

I can give him high praise for being generous enough to offer a home and his love for the benefit of a child, that is impressive. There's nothing worth noting beyong that however.

The rest is just echoing rhetoric for the sake of an end to an agenda. As someone who pratices several fields of study when it comes to social behavior, I would say if he is truly interested in the well being of the child and actually has it's best interest at heart, then don't put a small defenseless child, who cannot defend or express his true inner self or has the ability to make up his own mind in the middle of some political debate, especially when there is nothing to it other than 2 + decade old technology trying to be twisted in portraying it as some hero that saves the helpless children, half a brain could see that one, much less a person who studies how to see it.

You want to fool yourself and others, that's ok with me, people can do whatever they want with their time as far as I am concerned, but I know better about what human behavior is, I specialize in it. The same advice I give to people who have problems with their children I would say this.

Try not to use your children for your own political purposes, it's a terrible thing to do to your very own child, horrible thing. Anyone that does such a thing should be ashamed of themselves putting a small child in a position where it cannot express his "own" point of view and has been made a pawn by his own parent, terrible, shameful, something that can only hurt the child in the long run.

Of course even a dimestore therapist knows that.

Your comment was still rude.  If you studied manners instead of behavior you would not have made it.

Seems to me any father might fondly recall seeing his child in the arms of a President.  I think you're reading more into what JJ had to say than was actually there--a practice not unknown among behavioralists.

Seems to me that if I had a child that I thought of as being rescued from a freezer or from being turned into stem cells in a petri dish, I might want to make certain other embryos had the same chance that my child had.  I think that that  conviction goes deeper than politics, down deep into the soul where things worth living and dying for are kept.  

Seems to me that instead of fessing up to a simple faux pas--how could you know that you were insulting the father of the little boy?  Bad things happen in cyberspace without the social clues we rely upon in face-to-face interactions, as you must also know in your profession--you're getting defensive and compounding your faux pas.  Which is pretty graceless, if you ask me.  But I only have to deal with distressed trauma patients and families in crisis for 90-120 hours a week, so maybe I'm talking out of my hat here.  (If one is speaking of behavioralism and social expertise.)

Two on one, eh?  ;-)  OK

Under Catholic doctrine, evil acts are evil acts. "Less evil" is not a big concept with the Church. What Mengele did was wrong in and of itself. Even if every single one of his victims would have died in the death camps anyway, even if they suffered no more as a result of his experiment than they would otherwise, it was still an evil.

That's also von-doctrine (and von, who sometimes speaks in the third person, is not Catholic).*  But I don't see anything in Catholic theology that would teach that an experiment is itself immoral -- unless the experiment itself causes harm, death, or additional suffering.  In the Death Camps, experiments did cause "additional suffering" and thus were independently evil and worthy of indepedence condemnation.  (Although I think the forest-trees aspect of focusing on stopping prisoner experiments but ignoring the death camps to still be significant, even if I grant you the "indepedent evil" argument.)

But I don't have to grant you the independent evil argument (I think).  So far as we know, embryos cannot suffer.  The only possible harm that can be done to them is to destroy them.  I don't see why Catholic theology would prefer one form of intentional distruction over another, assuming that neither results in additional (or any) suffering.**  If the embryo doesn't suffer from the experiment, why would it matter whether it is destroyed in a lab or destoryed by tossing it out?

The doctor tells him that if aborts the baby, she will live. If he doesn't, then both she and the baby will die. Now, I think most of us would tend to say, well, in that case, let's save who we can. But to the priest, the difference is very large. Though both die through inaction, neither he nor the doctor is commiting the sin of murder by killing the baby. Essentially, the death of both is the will of God. If the doctor were to abort the baby, he would commit an evil act, a grave sin and would, essentially, be usurping God's power to decide who lives and who dies. It's a pretty harsh movie to watch, but is, I think, an excellent example of Catholic doctrine in such circumstances.

Possibly -- which is why it would be very difficult for me to be a Catholic.  As I understand Catholic theology, however, were abortion to be a byproduct of a life-saving medical procedure, the procedure would not be prohibited.  Am I right, or have I screwed something up?

von  

*Though, clearly, we shouldn't take this "no difference in evil" point too far.  Catholic theology does make distinctions between evils -- e.g., mortal and venal sins.  (I think everyone does, though not necessarily in those terms.)

**Pass for the moment the "negligent" destruction that comes from simply storing them so long that they degrade into a useless form; I'll agree that it's distinguishable.

Who would have known that someone would be so angry at the face of a one-month old child and a very proud Dad whose son was held by the President.  "Methinks thou doth protesteth too much" (Shakespeare).  I suppose your comments could anger me but instead they provoke feelings of sympathy for you.  My wife and I chose to adopt ALREADY-EXISTING embryos from a genetic family in order to have a child.  I guess you would like for me to apologize for that but I will not.  I am not exactly sure what your angle is or what upset you about my comments but I hope that instead of ranting and raving about I have no idea what you could see a baby, a Dad and the President.  Who wouldn't be excited about that?

This is what I get for writing while putting the last touches on a seventy page opinion letter.

Aargh.  I'll take a wild guess that it's an environmental issue.  (No need to respond.)

I was rephrasing your wording to more clearly express my view of the legislation at issue, paralleling your sentence structure for emphasis. Had I intended to engage in an argument, I would have done so.

Gotcha.

Which is my point. We should no more countenance experiments on children -- or embryos, or pick your term -- "slated for destruction" than we should on any other humans apparently irrevocably committed to some sort of externally imposed death.

Perhaps I was unclear.  My distinction between embryo/human experiments was based the fact that the latter can suffer (mentally and physically) but the former cannot.  (IOW, I'd be right at that wall with you.)  See my response to Pat for a fuller explanation.

I honestly thought we'd had this discussion before; my apologies for the assumption.

We have, but not in the context as to whether opposition to HR 810 will actually save any lies.  I do understand that you would ban fertility clinics that result in unused embryos (which, at present, includes every single one).  What I'm trying to probe is why -- if RedState is so concerned about the destruction of embryos -- it's so focused on the minority (tens, hundreds) of embryos that will be destroyed by experiments but ignoring the thousands (or more) embryos that are being and will be destroyed by other means.  It seems, as I put it with the "oppose Death Camp experiments but not Death camps" argument -- well, it seems more than a bit myopic from a moral standpoint.  (It's perfectly clear why RedState would take the position from a "political" standpoint, but I have a problem with political positions based on "morality" where the morality at work is left unmentioned.)

(3) I mean this sincerely: Thank you for spelling "by the bye" correctly.

There is always common ground.  ;-)

Just so everyone's completely clear on this, I never once would have thought you were.

Oh, I knew you'd know.  But I don't presume that others would.

Corporations spend their money which we voluntarily trade to them in exchange for goods or services.  If they want to continue receiving our money, they must find a way to continue providing the goods or services we need or desire.  It is in their best interest to find the most efficient and cost-effective ways to do that.  Government takes our money involuntarily, so there is little incentive to spend it wisely, since they will just take more from us if they fritter away what they have.  If embryonic stem cells have such a pathetic record when compared with adult, then private corporations naturally will go where the results are.  Researchers say that they are ten years away from any useful results of ESC research.  I predict that ten years from now, and billions of dollars later, ESC research will be able to do little more than duplicate achievements made by ASC research long before. The government, with no incentive to prioritize or reduce spending, will flounder along down a dead-end road just for the sake of increasing the budget at the National Institute of Health, which suffers from "mission-creep" like all good bureaucracies.

All of that you say about nuclear power is true, except for the part about being "propped up" by the government.  It is called "regulation", and the nuclear industry has been slowly choking under its heavy hand for years.   Unless we start building new nuclear power plants, all of the various nuclear regulatory agencies, commissions and departments will essentially become caretakers for a dying industry, although they would no doubt be asking for budget increases even as the last fuel rod was being pulled from the last operational reactor.    Meanwhile, we keep throwing taxpayer money at wind power, (NASA even got in on that action!) even though it will never be able to produce more than a fraction of what it once promised.   If you still don't like my nuke/windmill analogy, how about this one:  ESC research is Synfuels with moral baggage.  

It is a mistake to federally fund ESC research at the expense of ASC research, and that is exactly what will happen once we start up the embryo mines and the grants start flowing from the NIH.  President Bush was right to limit research to embryos already destroyed, because creating an unlimited supply of available embryos will only encourage research that is scientifically, ethically and fiscally dubious.

The determination is the intent. You can treat the mother to save her life regardless of the outcome to the child because the loss of the child's life is not the purpose of the procedure.

Therein lies one of the dangers of getting your theology from old movies.

to say that these embryos can be "adopted", it is quite another thing to actually implement a policy as a solution to a perceived moral dilemma caused by IVF.  Donors may not want strangers having their babies and a lot of people may not be comfortable carrying a stranger's baby.  

Considering that IVF is inherently wasteful (excess embryos are almost always produced) every couple would have to agree to "adopt out" their excess embryos or forgo treatments.  Would you put a national cap on the number of "embryo orphans", suspending future IVF treatments until the number of adoptable embryos dropped below some arbitrary number?

Adopted embryos may make a nice photo op, but they are hardly a feasible solution, or even pertinent, to the issue.  

The nuclear power industry is not propped up by the government.  

--The Government, through the nuclear navy, trains most of the nuclear power plant operators for free.  

--The Government, through the DOE, manufactures the fuel rods for the nuclear power industry.  That infrastructure was created to produce raw materials for the atomic weapons program and is a huge subsidation of the civil nuclear power program.

--The Government limits the liability of nuclear power plants should they have a catastrophic accident.  If this liability cap were lifted, there would never be a nuclear power plant built anywhere in this country.  Nobody would insure them.

--The Government has agreed to be responsible for all radioactive waste produced by the industry, including the reactors themselves.

Basic research is essential along with more focussed research.  Again look at nuclear power.  It was almost 50 years from the discovery of radiation until nuclear research began to bear fruit.  Even the most forward looking corporation in the world would have cut off funding to the Curies in a heartbeat with that kind of timeline.

First and foremost, congratulations on your family.  If you do not mind me asking, when you received the donated embryos, how many were obtained?  Of those obtained, how many were transferred?

The reason I ask is I suspect the reproductive endocrinologist transferred several embryos into your wife having advised both of you that a multiple transfer was necessary to secure a singleton pregnancy.  As part of this discussion it would have been made clear that there is a certain embryo loss rate during each transfer.  So do you see any disconnect in your argument given that you knowingly proceeded with a procedure that by design accounted for the loss of several of those embryos?

By the way, some in this thread have mistakenly used the term "blastocyst".  A blastocyst is a five day embryo as contrasted by the three day embryos that have historically been transferred during an IVF procedure (at three days the embryos are approximately 8 cells while at day five the blastocyst is approximately 100).  This difference is significant as reproductive endocrinologists will  transfer fewer blastocysts then embryos during a transfer (recent studies have indicated that the transfer of a single blastocyst is as effective as transferring multiple blastocysts).  The problem is there is a higher loss rate of embryos who cannot survive from day 3 to day 5 in the lab.  However, if you elect to have a blastocyst transfer, your reproductive endocrinologist will transfer fewer embryos because of a higher success rate.  This obviously presents yet another dilemma - are you ethically obligated to go to the blastocyst stage to reduce the number of embryos that will be lost post-transfer or does the potential loss of embryos in the lab between day three and day five ethically obligated you to transfer more at day three so they demise in the body rather then in a lab?  In either event, embryos will be lost and for those that oppose embryonic stem cell research it would seem to be consistent, they would have to oppose all IVF.  As it relates to HR 810, it would seem that anyone who supports IVF would have to support the bill as in both instances there is an accepted loss of embryos that will have to occur in order to promote the potential for life.

A survey of fertility clinics in 2002 indicated that there were about 400,000 frozen embryos across the country.

That is a whole lot of adoptions.

Not only are there far more then 400,000 currently cryopreserved, but many of them even thawed will never yield a child because of their poor quality.  During most IVF cycles, reproductive endocrinologists will proceed with a fresh transfer, using embryos that were created three to five days earlier.  Embryologists monitor the development of the embryos and will select the best embryos for that fresh transfer (the number that will be transferred will vary based upon any number of variables including age of the eggs, quality of the embryos, etc...).  The remaining embryos are then frozen for possible later use.  Given the nature of IVF then, the highest quality embryos are typically transferred fresh while the relatively poorer quality embryos will be saved in case the first transfer fails (or if successful, to have another child).  

So while there are well over 500,000 cryopreserved embryos in existence, a much smaller percentage of those will ever yield a pregnancy. Parenthetically it needs to be noted that notwithstanding advances in the technology, there is a lower success rate when transferring frozen embryos as opposed to fresh.  So when you factor into the equation the quality and cryopreserved nature of these embryos you are looking at least 250,000 of those embryos that are destined to demise.   Please also keep in mind that many, many couples are unwilling to donate their embryos because they are uncomfortable with the possibility that they will become genetic parents to a child they will never know and their children will never get the opportunity to meet their genetic siblings.

Actually, I mostly told the story of the movie because I saw it years and years ago and I absolutely cannot remember the name of it. I really was hoping someone on here knew the title. I'm probably completely skewering what it was really about.

Thank you.  We adopted 10 embryos from our genetic family.  They all had to be thawed and three survived and one is now our son Trey.  For more information we have a website at www.jjandtracy.com.  We made the moral decision to only have transferred the number we would carry to term.  God was in control after that.  We did absolutely nothing selective or that would in any way destroy any of the embryos at our direction.  Unfortunately, only three survivied the thawing process and we implanted all three of them.  Regarding the morality of IVF, we want to spend our effort and advocacy on the embryos that are already there - some 400,000 plus in the U.S.  We also want to advocated that our tax dollars not be spent on Embryonic Stem Cell Research that requires the destruction of the Embryo and in our opinion human life.  Good questions all and feel free to ask more.

"Unless the experiment itself causes harm, death, or additional suffering." The experiments did cause suffering. The question is not whether it caused "additional" suffering. In the first place, at that level of evil, I'm not sure how to distinguish between the suffering caused simply by existing and awaiting death by gassing or starvation and the suffering caused by vivisection, repeated immersion in freezing water, etc. I don't think a comparative analysis works, so I don't think tossing in the "additional" saves your point.

I think (and of course Thomas is the master of Catholic doctrine around here, I only fiddle at the edges on occasion) the whole point I was making is that Catholic doctrine is in fact not showing a preference between one form of destruction or another. Catholic doctrine decries both forms of destruction, period, even if one of them produces a little good as a side benefit to the evil of destroying the embryo/baby/human being.

And remember that Catholic  doctrine also prohibits in vitro fertilization, even when it is not accompanied by destruction of excess embryos.

Briefly, because today is more hectic than yesterday, and I don't want to leave this hanging until Monday night:

The distinction is to my mind largely irrelevant, but I suspect you gathered as much. An embryo cannot, at least where we're talking, feel pain. It can be killed. To kill for medical research violates that child's essential dignity no less than it would the prisoner's. To speak to your larger point to Pat, if you could somehow extract the desired cells from the child without killing or hurting the child, the experiments would be completely licit; however, merely because the children are already slated for death, does not obviate the ill of killing the children for experimental purposes.

As to why-the-lesser-but-not-the-greater: Politics is the art of the possible. No one here is dense enough to think there's popular support for criminalizing fertility clinics that send those children to death, for the reasons I mentioned above.

Or, if you prefer: Every journey begins with a single step.

I think (and of course Thomas is the master of Catholic doctrine around here, I only fiddle at the edges on occasion) the whole point I was making is that Catholic doctrine is in fact not showing a preference between one form of destruction or another. Catholic doctrine decries both forms of destruction, period, even if one of them produces a little good as a side benefit to the evil of destroying the embryo/baby/human being.

I actually think we're on the same page.  That is:  the destruction of the embryo is the alleged evil.  Embryonic stem cell research is one way to destroy the embryo, and therefore it is one way to accomplish the alleged evil.  But it is not the only way and it is not the most common way.  Moreover, embryonic stem cell research will not destroy any additional embryos; indeed, each embryo that is destroyed by embryonic stem cell research almost certainly would have been destroyed if the research is prohibited.  

IOW, the real "problem" isn't embryonic stem cell research per se, but rather the creation of embryos outside the womb that we cannot realistically expect to implant and bring to term.  It's the creation of embryos that will be destroyed.  Now, for obvious political reasons, no one wants to argue against the creation of embryos that will be destroyed.  RedState sure isn't taking the position that the Pill must be banned and every fertility clinic must be shut down, because that's a very good way of turning fifty U.S. states in BlueStates.

Rather, RedState and President Bush are taking the peculiar position of advocating against using federal funds to assist one way by which embryos may be destroyed -- and, perversely, the one way in which may very well result in some positive benefit for life.  (As I suggested, I'm not a utilitarian; given my undergraduate background in econ, though, it's tough to ignore utilitarian arguments.)

That is, I can understand Thomas' position on the issue.  I can understand Pat's and Streiff's position on the issue.  I can understand Augustine's position on the issue.  I can understand the Catholic Church's position on the issue.  These are all positions based on a coherent morality.  I may disagree with them, but I can understand them.

As a matter of morality, however, RedState's and President Bush's position is incoherent (at least as currently presented).  Typically this would not matter, because politics is all about finding sometimes-incoherent common ground in competing moralities.  But, in this case, RedState and others opposed to embryonic stem cell research are expressly basing their arguments on morality.  Preserve these lives! comes the shout.  Well, if these embryos be lives, they will be forfeit whether HR 810 becomes law or not.  HR 810 will destroy nothing; it merely selects the means of destruction.

All this makes RedState's and President Bush's stance against HR 810 in order to save lives seem a bit silly to me.  If you accept RedState's and President Bush's premise (these embryos are people!), it's a little like arguing that it's better to kill these folks with a .45, because a 9 mm uses the metric system.  Of course, that analogy breaks down because a 9mm handgun never cured any disease -- and embryonic stem cell research might.  

...you really clamped down on the nuke!  

Since you wish to change the debate from cell nuclei to atomic nuclei, I will grant you that the government is subsidizing nuclear power to a large extent, but this is largely because of the dual-use nature of nuclear power.  One of the main functions of our government is to provide for our defense.  Thus, government involvement in advancing our mastery of nuclear energy for weapons necessitates its critical involvement in peaceful applications of nuclear power.  I have no quarrel with government involvement in the nuclear industry, although we are long overdue for a reassessment of that involvement.   In my original comment, I was lamenting the neglect of nuclear energy with regards to power production, as compared with the enthusiastic government subsidization of wind energy research even after it is obvious that wind power will never live up to its original great expectations.

The government cannot throw our money at every notion that comes down the pike, simply because the notion has "potential", especially when there are less controversial alternatives which have already moved beyond "potential benefit" to "actual benefit".  Speaking as a fiscal conservative, I don't even need the moral argument (although I agree with it) to tell me that Embryonic Stem Cell research is not something I wish for our government to promote and fund.  

"Thus, government involvement in advancing our mastery of nuclear energy for weapons necessitates its critical involvement in peaceful applications of nuclear power."

The government is involved in nuclear energy, because it is what makes our submarines and our aircraft carriers go.

All the submarines and all the aircraft carriers used by the US Navy are powered by nuclear energy.  So while the government trains these guys "for free" the guys making those ships go, maintaining that equipment and working their tails off (and given that my dh was a nuke while in the Navy, I know for a fact just how much they worked his tail off) the government is coming out ahead, even if when the guy goes civilian he ends up working for Westinghouse or some nuclear plant somewhere.

I said that the argument as you usually make it around here is circular. You generally toss out your catch phrase about "slicing and dicing human beings" when the subject under discussion is what actually makes a human being. Someone who believes a different doctrine than you doesn't believe that the frozen embryos are "human beings" at that point in time, so simply saying they are "slicing and dicing human beings" doesn't take the argument very far.

My liver cells and skin cells and stomach cells are all human cells, but they are not a new human being.

By and large I tend to agree with you, but I'm trying to flesh out all the arguments to better understand it in my own mind.

Do you know for a fact whether the government funds in vitro fertilization research or actual in vitro fertilization (through Medicare, etc.)? If they do, then that would strongly support your argument that consistency would require opposing federal funding for that, first, and fighting over stem cell research with otherwise to be discarded embryos second, simply because the first kills far more embryos than the second does.

to the ultimate detriment of those who scooped us.  

When the U.S. government discontinued funding SST research, it was seen as a terrible blow to our aerospace industy's prestige, since the both Soviets and a British/French consortium were leaving us behind in this area.  Now we realize that the right decision was made.  Neither the government-subsidized Concorde nor the Soviet TU-144 ever reached anywhere near their potential, and they were ultimately done in by economic, environmental and safety considerations.  The same thing will probably happen to the heavily-subsidized Airbus A380.

Thank you so much for being here. Yours is a courageous and amazing story, and I feel very proud for you.

"Try not to use your children for your own political purposes, it's a terrible thing to do to your very own child, horrible thing. Anyone that does such a thing should be ashamed of themselves putting a small child in a position where it cannot express his "own" point of view and has been made a pawn by his own parent, terrible, shameful, something that can only hurt the child in the long run."  

If this is your advice to the father, one could say you need to follow it yourself, given that RS is all about politics. You give this father grief for allowing his child to be photographed with the president, and then you bring up your own kids in defense of your behavior.  I have no problem with either of you showing your kids or talking about them, but the snideness, cynicism and anger in your post came out like pus from a lanced boil.  

Could it be that adoption of embryos is an option that is not widely known about by the general public, even though it has been around for more than two decades?  Could it be that greater public knowledge of this option will affect opinion as to the disposition of extra embryos?  Isn't it possible that the president's advocacy of this option goes beyond the political to being informative?

Would you similarly chastise all the parents of MD poster children?  Are these children all pawns too?  

Thomas, I see you are busy with non-blogging matters today, but this post raises another question in my mind.

You say:

if you could somehow extract the desired cells from the child without killing or hurting the child, the experiments would be completely licit

At my own alma mater at LSU, Dr. Robert Godke was a pioneer in early experiments with what amounted to twinning of animal embryos through human intervention. He took a multi-celled blastocyst whose cells had not yet started to differentiate, separated them, and grew new embryos, basically, from each one. There was more to it than that, but I don't remember all the details.

So suppose you grew an IVF embryo until it was, say, 8 cells. Or to remove the slightly separate moral issue of IVF let's imagine this is done through laproscopic surgery on a just-impregnated woman. Extraction of 1 of the 8 cells of this blastocyst will not harm the baby at all (Dr. Godke's method was very successful when adopted by the cattle industry as a way to increase the number of offspring produced by champion cows and bulls). Indeed, you could take half of those cells and the baby would still turn out just fine, just as in the naturally-occuring identical twin process.

Your statement I quote above (which I will not hold you to since it was written in haste) suggests that you would allow experimentation on that cell because its taking did not harm the child. But each of the cells taken from that undifferentiated blastocyst has the capacity to grow into a human being, if implanted in someone's womb. Did that one cell become a separate human immediately upon removal from its fellow blastocyst cells? At what point in the prcoess do those blastocyst cells transform from each being human if removed from the rest to simply being the moral equivalent of my skin cells?

Do you know for a fact whether the government funds in vitro fertilization research or actual in vitro fertilization (through Medicare, etc.)? If they do, then that would strongly support your argument that consistency would require opposing federal funding for that, first, and fighting over stem cell research with otherwise to be discarded embryos second, simply because the first kills far more embryos than the second does.

My understanding is that federal dollars do not directly support in vitro fertilizations; whether they support in vitro research, I have no idea (given the path that basic science takes, I suspect that one could argue that some federal dollars have found their way into in vitro research).  I do know that some states require private insurance companies to offer and/or provide such coverage, but that's handled by the state insurance commissioners -- not the federal government.

By the way, I am not suggesting that we ban in vitro fertilization; to the contrary, I generally support in vitro fertilization just as I generally support embryonic stem cell research.  I do draw a distinction between them as to the propriety of federal funding:  

1.  As for in vitro fertilization, I oppose using federal money for in vitro fertilization.  You should not be forced to subsidize what you believe will almost certainly result in the murder of a human being.
   
2.  However, as pointed out above, once an "embryo-certain-to-be-destroyed" has been created, I do not have a problem directing federal funds to allow some good to come out of its destruction.  IOW, the question of destruction is moot; the only issue is whether some good will come of it.*

von

*Note that my argument does not rely on utilitarianism -- balancing good versus evil, and deciding that the good is worth the evil.  Rather, it is creating a separate good out of events that may (or may not, to my way of thinking) be evil.

I call it  "The Solomon Compromise" .  Unfortunately The Catholic Church has anticipated this suggestion.

The Holy See seeks a complete and explicit prohibition on all techniques of creating new individual human embryos by cloning, including somatic cell nuclear transfer, embryo splitting, and other similar techniques that may develop in the future.  This prohibition must also encompass parthenogenesis and the creation of human-animal "chimeric embryos" by nuclear transfer.

http://www.holyseemission.org/cloning2003eng.html

They have been pretty thorough in their opposition to this in any way shape or form.

...I meant not only warheads but their nuclear-powered conveyances as well.  Sorry if that wasn't clear. What I meant by that statement was this: Our government wrote the original manual for dealing with the atom, so our civilians are obliged to read and obey lessons from that manual if they want to work with atoms, too. I agree with everything you say about our nuclear navy, and I strongly support the use of nuclear power for civilian and military purposes.  Heck, I even supported the Cassini probe!  I only brought up nuclear power to point out the government neglect/restriction of civilian nuclear power usage, while funding frivolous efforts like wind power research.  I was trying to parallel this with the deemphasis of ASC research in favor of ESC research.  It is not my intention to use the nuclear option, and I am willing to work out a deal, OK?

the nuclear power industry or the nuclear navy (although I will point out we do have two conventionally powered aircraft carriers, the Kitty Hawk and the John F. Kennedy), only the importance of both basic research and government involvement in supporting industries vital to this countries scientific preeminence.

You should not be forced to subsidize what you believe will almost certainly result in the murder of a human being.

This idea underlies the Redstate official policy position under discussion. I'm a bit worried that this argument will give support to other arguments that the federal government should not fund things which some group is strongly morally opposed to.

There are plenty of moonbats on the left who believe all of our actions in Iraq and elsewhere constitute "murder" on a large scale. An argument that the government should not fund such activities because many people consider it to be murder will give some support to those leftist arguments. There are distinctions to be made, not least of which is the idea that we shouldn't fund what a majority is morally opposed to funding, but it will provide the left with a snappy comeback.

And of course there's also the death penalty. There are a whole lot of people in this country who oppose the death penalty in all circumstances (I'm not one of them). Why should they be "forced to subsidize" what they believe to be murder?

Seemed like a set up photo shoot for publicity,  if this is not the case, then I'll be pulling this shoe out of my mouth for awhile, and no apology would be sufficient.

I will check with my people in Washington, one is a former lobbist that helps Bush set this stuff up (her name is Cathy some may actually already know her, her last name will remain confidential for obvious reasons) she is my cousin, as amazing as that might be considering my political views ( and I'm a Texan, a real one, born there). But we maintain a good relationship all the same.

If she tells me this was not a photo op, then I'll donate $100.00 to redstate and see if I can arrange something for you in Washington for you and your family or a night on the town on me or whatever. This is about the most I can offer to say I am sorry. Best wishes to your family and your new child, there certainly is no other greater joy.

that might have been the case, I should practice more restraint and understanding.

But his post does not reflect anything other than his joy for his children. I offered that the whole thing was for publicity for the ends to a means. To me, if someone says they are doing something or saying something for only honorable reasons yet they hide some part of it that could change some persons mind, and does not reflect the the truth, the "WHOLE TRUTH" and nothing but the truth, then they are a liar in the worst degree.

If I say I am against drugs, and at the same moment choose not to tell the people or public I am talking to that I use to use said drugs, then this is not the "WHOLE TRUTH". It is a deception, a non-truth, a charlatan of fact, and leaves the listener without all the info to make an "INFORMED" decision. It is the essence of the purist of lies and deception, the worst of all kind.(Satanistic is the term I remember most when reflecting upon my readings that decribe this type of lie) A deliberate and thoughtout deception, like murder in the first degree rather than the second or third. It is purposeful, planned and an intentional deception.

There is no other type of person that is more dangerous to the Republic, humankind or any form of morals.

He has now said that this is not the case, I'll take his word for it and eat the shoe I put in my mouth. But, I have a very definite way of finding out exactly what the photo was for and I must believe him now or until proved otherwise and offer my apologies as I was out of line.

It's begging the question.

And whether it's a human being isn't in debate. It's whether it's a person or not.