Redstate

Or simply Frist is just dumb. He may have the skills needed to be a heart surgeon but the guy got rolled on the judicial nominees and now he's torpedoed his own Presidential aspirations.

But realize he was President Bush's pick to replace Trent Lott. Put some of the blame on the White House for choosing this political doofus.

That ideas which are som plain and clear to floks outside of Washington, DC are so often confusing to those inside DC. Frist, who does much good around the world charitably donating his medical services, and who stood so strong for life over Terri Schiavo has now, if the stories are accurate embraced without good explanation a position that is anti-thetical to what he has claimed to believe.

desecrating the grave of his Presidential campaign. I don't feel quite as strongly as you do about the issue, but I know cheap pandering and failure of character when I see it.

"The Majority Leader has not just failed social conservatives on this issue, but fiscal ones as well."

This point should get a lot more emphasis than it does.

The issue of government funding for embryonic stem-cell research should interest people all over the big tent.  This idea being pushed by Frist and the Democrats, that big government is needed for research to happen, is daft.  The lie being pushed, that President Bush has banned such research, is shameless.

If millionaire Hollywood actors and Democratic Senators want the research done, there's nothing to stop them from funding it themselves.  And if it's as popular as they claim, they should have no trouble getting lots of donations to their cause.

Keep government out of it, though.

leaving the senate, and him no longer being the majority leader, because the last half of his title is sadly lacking.

I realize that Frist is well liked, but his leadership is horrible, and he seems more determined to waffle on things important to conservatives, than to stand up and fight for them as the right thing to do.

The one thing his tenure as majority leader has convinced me of, is that I will not even be considering him for the presidency.

I've held off critisim of Dr. Frist until now.  

His failure to get an up or down vote on Bolton, his inability to force a vote for all Federal Appeals court nominees, and now the support of a practice built off the life of an unborn child.

I don't really care about the idea of Bush vs Frist- or that this shows some deeper power struggle.  This is about taking a position that is clearly not in line with the conservative base of the party.  The same base which came out in force for President Bush and helped secure the election.

With Dr. Frist leaving the senate in 2006- maybe he can go and work for a firm willing to kill unborn children in order to harvest their cells.  

As it is, he has no place running for the nomination of the Republican Party.  

And this isn't about Frist, but the embryonic stem cell debate in general.  I hope it is OK to ask here.  If not, I appologize.

How do you feel about the use of "surplus" embryos from fertility clinics?  It has been said that they discard them from time to time.

Would it be OK to use those, because they would never have the possibility of being implanted in a human being and thus coming to term, or does it remain a federal funding issue for you?

Then also, are you interested in preserving those embryos, as well, and keeping them from being discarded in the first place?  Or is that "acceptable" because the clinics are private and don't use federal funds (I don't actually know if that is true or not)?

How do people here feel about this?  Does anybody know about those clinics?

is that they run with discipline.

It is clear now that Frist's lack of character is the weakness the dems have exploited in stalling Bolton, ahve used in holding up reformingthe court and are likely to use in holding up the nomination of Roberts.

first we had that jerkwad who cetrayed the party by leaving it. Now we have a weasel from Tennessee

who is undermining himself, the party, our President and the country...and for what?

So I'm a strong pro-lifer and anti-stem cell researcher and I disagree with what Frist did today.

But should we really be calling him a traitor ?

Does one particular position out of step with what is likely a slim majority of the GOP and a minority of the general public constitute someone being a traitor ?

Seems a bit harsh.

"He knows there is no scientific debate about when human life begins."

This sentence alone struck me as so far out to fringe territory.

There really IS ZERO debate on this subject within the scientific community?  And what conclusion did they reach?  What meeting was that, and who cast the deciding vote that it was at conception, and not at implantation in the uterus, or the beginning of a heartbeat, or the beginning of brain activity, or at viability...

Please show evidence that this is the case.

Because if Frist is part of the scientific community as a medical doctor, he just proved that there IS debate, didn't he?

... I was wondering the same thing.

As far as I'm concerned, the government shouldn't get into the business of funding scientific experiments on "surplus" human life.

embryos to be used, the federal government just isn't going to fund it.

Personally I think it is life, and I am not comfortable using human life in human experimentation projects.  

Also, we overly focus on embryonic stem cells when adult and cord blood stem cell research has produced the most promising results-and the feds are willing to fund that.

SO my opinion is that just because we can do something, that doesn't make it okay to do it, and embryonic stem cell research fits into that catagory for me.  

of leadership he exhibited, I might go for your argument.

But the reality is that the problem isn't the big tent with him it is his position as the majority leader, and he waffles, and just has no leadership ability.

He may be nice.

But he is a horrible leader, and he showed that on his handling of judges, of his handling on Bolton, and will probably screw up Roberts' nomination while we are at it.

Although I agree with federal funding of stem cell research, this is such a bad move for Frist. I never thought he had much of a chance at the nomination anyway, but now I think he can forget it.  He's got to be the most inept major politician around.

You are OK with private entities doing whatever they want?

I am not trying to trap you or use your words against you, but isn't that the same argument that is being made about abortions?  "It is between a woman and her doctor?"

Or does the fact that it is "surplus" make it a different category?  Or the experimentation?

I think I am leaning to the side that says that if they are going to be destroyed anyway, that life should be used to benefit the suffering.  But I am trying to keep an open mind.  I wouldn't want there to be the generation of extra "surplus" embryos just for that purpose.  I could see a slippery slope, and no good way to stop it.

it's a flip-flop-flip or else a flip-flop flip-flop.    As he supported the funding of embryonic stem cell research before he opposed it.  But now he supports it again.  Anyway, you know what I mean.

I have to point out that this:

"if he has his way - Trey Jones would not exist."

is not merely innaccurate,... it is a deception.

The discarded embryos that will be used for stem cell research are in fact embryos that are being discarded.  They are not embryos that the egg and sperm donors would have donated to other couples, as Trey Jones and the other "Snowflake babies" are, they are embryos that are going to be incinerated or frozen to death.  If the egg and sperm donors choose to donate their healthy embryos to other couples then there will be no opportunity to conduct ES cell research.  The only embryos that will be used for stem cell research are those that are no longer being considered for any reproductive purposes.

Also, this:

"the embryos he seeks to have destroyed at taxpayer expense"

is not technically accurate as the stem cell lines would be established in laboratories that are not federally funded.  Once established there, federally funded labs could ask for samples of the embryonic stem cell lines so that they could use them to research new cures for diseases.  

As for this:

"Bill Frist is a man without principles."

I agree with you.  But that was evident when he first flipped, or flip-flopped, or whatever on this issue.

His comments were breathtaking in hypocrisy and incoherence.

I had seen plenty of Democrats admit to a moral truth but settle on policies that neither defended nor reflected that truth.  Frist actually said that life begins at conception.  He went on to say that this life is unworthy of protection.

His argument on the science is inconsistent as well.  The science just isn't promising.  In nature these cells give rise to all cells in the body.  In the lab, they have only given rise to tumors in mice.  

No human has been treated.  And no human clinical are close to being approved.  Look at clinicaltrials.gov.  There you'll find the plethora of adult stem cell treatments in human clinical trials for diesease like diabetes, parkinsons, cancers, and so on.

Apart from this life argument, the most compelling for me from a federal policy standpoint is that the private sector isn't investing in this stuff.

New Jersey Rep. MIke Ferguson told reporters this morning that biotech execs tell him they "can't possibly justify to our shareholders to invest their money in science which is so unpromising when there are other such promising alternatives like cord blood, like adult stem cells, like placental cells."

We can't expect taxpayers to shoulder the risk of this research.  BEnefits are at least a decade away and if they don't come (this is likely), we will have diverted precious time and resources away from treatments that are saving lives today.

As a libertarian, I don't support federal funding of any sort of medical research but this choosing this issue to make your stand ranks right up there with the tactical brilliance of the Teri Schiavo fiasco.

You want to win on abortion or any other "life" issue?  Then learn to position yourself where you can capture the majority of citizens to move them closer to your position.  The reason why pro-lifers have generally be more successful at least legislatively is because they've found the positions where a majority of citizens agree (e.g. ban on partial birth abortion, waiting periods, parental notification, etc.) that enjoyed popular support where as the pro-abortion side has been forced to defend a position (no restrictions on any abortion) that most people find abhorrent.  

Like it or not, the public doesn't agree with you about embryonic stem cells particularly not as how most people don't seem to have a problem with in vitro fertilization even though the practice today results in the destruction of unused human embryos.  A public that already agrees with this practice is going to be hard-pressed to be persuaded that embryos which are already going to be destroyed ought not to be used to possibly save another person's life.

Ghoulish?  Perhaps but when the alternative being presented (even though it's a distorted picture) is grandma with Alzheimer's or grandpa needing a heart repair and you've got about 60 million baby boomers who are scared s***less about the nightmare living as an invalid and being a burden on their families, you need to learn to tread carefully on this issue unless you're hoping to get your brains beat in by Democrats who recognize that "end of life" issues are about the only "social issues" where they're on the side of the majority in the public and would just love for a wedge issue like this to use against Republicans.  

We got off lucky on Teri Schiavo because it was a one-time deal and there were Democrats who voted for it which prevented them from gaining any traction on the issue.  But now we're starting down the path where Democrats might be able to find an issue particularly since we're a party divided on this (especially when so many pro-lifers like Orin Hatch are lining up on the other side) and it's an issue where we're in the minority.

Learn to pick your battles and to proceed strategically if you're interested in prevailing on the issue.  And BTW, while I have my own problems with Frist and no problem with replacing him or any other leader (Delay and Hastert included) so long as it's because there is someone better to do the job, calling him a "Traitor" ranks right up there with the Kossacks who jumped on Durbin for apologizing for his Nazi smear.

When the emotions cool and reason is regained, change the title.

My take on this is the following:

The government has two choices.  

1. Fund or partially fund research involving the destruction of human embryos that would have been destroyed anyway.
   
2. Do not fund such research

Option 1) has many sticky ethical questions and would involve complicated oversight issues, not to mention the expenditure of tax dollars on something the federal government doesn't have a constitutional mandate for.  There is potential benefit, but this benefit can be gained from other avenues of research (i.e., adult stem cell research).

Option 2) has no ethical issues, no oversight or regulatory implications, and no cost in terms of tax dollars.  No benefit here (other than constraining the government), but also doesn't preclude involvement in alternatives like adult stem cell research.

When I back away from the issue and look at it in these terms, it seems that option 2) is the better choice.

I'm talking about government funding and subsidization of an act.  That's a matter wholly separate from the government banning an act.

There is a middle ground, where we don't ban something, but we don't have the government pay for it.  I favor the federal government to be in that middle ground  for both abortion and embryonic stem-cell research.

Here are some additional thoughts:

http://republicansenate.blogspot.com/2005/07/bill-frist-sellout.html

Of course the government should not be using tax dollars to finance the destruction of human embryos.

Nor should they be using tax dollars to subsidize widespread pollution, as they have done this week in the energy bill. It ia true that the energy bill helps industry and the economy. Well, so would embryonic stem cell research, but so far we have been able to say no to that economy booster.

Fighting for human life is not an all-or-nothing struggle. Making sure the federal government doesn't fund the killing of human embryos is only a first step for me. Someday when the political winds are going the right direction and the culture is prepared I hope there's a move to ban all ESC research. But just like partial-birth abortion this is a step-by-step process.

does this enables Democratic presidential candidates to come off stronger and better positioned to defeat GOP candidates on the stem cell issue in 2006?

If GOP can't maintain momentum as the election approaches by having a firm hand on leadership and leading on various issues.  It can't afford to look like it's starting to waver, giving in to Democrats and pressure from interest groups, even if it's just one person.  We're talking about a Senate majority leader!  This is too important for us to ignore completely.

If not, then we may see Democrats picking up some seats in both Houses in 2006 as long GOP is unable to stand up firmly on major life-or-death issues.

Right now, Frist has totally lost all of my respect for him.  Indeed, he is now no longer a favorite presidential candidate for 2008...

I'm wondering if can anybody is willing to swallow and say, "Michael Peroutka?"

Sorry to editors at Redstate.org, but I couldn't resist adverstising weakly about US Constitution Party.

Yeah, I tend to agree here.  It would be a little extreme to call him a traitor for simply being off the GOP reservation on one or two issues (note that no-one is calling Arlen Spector or George Pataki traitors), but he has caved or just generally been weak on a number of issues, particularly recently (filibuster, appointee confirmation for judges, Bolton, others, and creating a cohesive ruling coalition in the Senate like Tom DeLay has in the House).

Does Newt have any political proteges without the social baggage?

I strongly encourage the continuing coalescence of the pro-abortion and the pro-toleration-of-Islamists wings of the party.

... and conservative foriegn policy -- but is admittedly mixed on conservative social values -- I couldn't agree more with this.

It's obvious that the overwhelming majority of Americans don't even realize that Bush's principled stand on this issue has done nothing, nothing, to prevent priately-funded research.  

They (MSM, Democrats) drive me a little further to the right every day.

As for Frist, he'd have been infinitely wiser to take the bully pulpit on this and explain to America that there's plenty of embroyonic stem cell research in this country.  

It seems to me that it's pretty obvious that the only bright line is conception. That's when you've got a unique organism. Science won't tell you what life is though. It also won't tell you what's worth protecting and what's not. That's a moral judgment.

Since "life" is such a loaded term, I think scientists tend not to debate when it begins.

Pro-lifers are winning (sort of) because of better tactics.

Moving on.

That makes a lot of sense.  It ispired me to find this NIH site where you are right, it says:

Adult stem cells such as blood-forming stem cells in bone marrow (called hematopoietic stem cells, or HSCs) are currently the only type of stem cell commonly used to treat human diseases...  The clinical potential of adult stem cells has also been demonstrated in the treatment of other human diseases that include diabetes and advanced kidney cancer.

But it also says:

There are currently several limitations to using adult stem cells. Although many different kinds of multipotent stem cells have been identified, adult stem cells that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found. Adult stem cells are often present in only minute quantities and can therefore be difficult to isolate and purify. There is also evidence that they may not have the same capacity to multiply as embryonic stem cells do...

I didn't see much about cord cells.  But hopefully, science will be able to catch up to these problems without having to use embryos.  I think your last point resonates well:  just because we can do something, that doesn't make it okay to do it  That is the point, isn't it?  Is it worth it, just because it is easier...?

for the clarification.  Your point is taken.

"failed fiscal conservatives"

We already spend money on health and basic science research.  This proposal does not increase the amount we spend on NIH or NSF or anything else.  It merely allows those researchers who recieve federal funding to use those dollars on the research that they believe will be most productive in gaining new knowledge and curing diseases.

If we are going to provide money to find a cure for Parkinson's disease, shouldn't we allow scientists and doctors to use that money in the most productive manner possible?

It seem to me that everyone agrees that clinically proven treatments developed from embryonic stemcells is a distant future possibility. Wouldn't be better to take all the leftover embroys and implant them into women willing to incubate them for a decent, living wage, birth the donor organisms and nourish them while they grow the organs that can then be harvested for transplant. In short, why grow them in a dish when there is a well proven method that produces viable, marketable, life-saving products?

Picard90,

I'm going to give you a warning, which is more than you may get from somebody else. Please note that this is specifically a Republican site, not a conservative site. Promotional links to the sites of other parties are not welcome, no matter how angry you are at Bill Frist.

Secondly, we frankly don't like to be associated with some of Mr. Peroutka's more extreme comments, especially those about the Confederacy, etc. They don't speak for anyone I know who is either a Director or editor, and we will not promote him.

IT's the principle that counts here.  By siding  with the liberals, and equating "supporting research" with "using government to support research," he is adopting and advancing an ideology of expanding government.

When the public is convinced all good things must come from government, fiscal conservatives are doomed.

Allen? Brownback? Anyone else that should be mentioned on the short list?

I think it could have even been harsher. The bright side, I suppose - is that we won't have to spend time agonizing about Frist's commitment when he's in Iowa.

 

>>>>is that they run with discipline.

Sorry, the grass is always greener! Democrats are only disciplined these days because of complaints from the grass roots that they weren't doing it as well as the G.O.P.  Plus, y'all did us a big favor by getting rid of Daschle. He was even less effective than Frist. After months of watching Reid, Pelosi finally figured it out after yesterday's CAFTA debacle. Some Democrats are going to pay dearly for that yes vote.

Allen somewhat-although not sure about his position on stem cells.

Newt has talked about running.

I think there are a couple of others.

McCain is pro life-what is his stem cell research position (although he may be opposed on issues of federal spending, he generally is a budget hawk).

And backing away from his courageous opposition to killing her, or rather, ameliorating its political harm to his presidential hopes.

"So, Mr. Leader, it's like this. Our polling shows you with a reservoir of goodwill among Republican voters, but once we start a series of informed ballot questions on Schiavo, you go right down the tubes. People think you were grandstanding and interfering in a private, personal matter. So you need to do something to distance yourself from that position, to distance yourself from being affiliated with the 'wacko Christian' wing of party."

"OK, how do I go about doing that?"

"First, it's important to get on the good side of the national media, who led the howling against defending Schiavo's life. All the humanitarian trips to Africa just don't cut it anymore -- they're too far away from the cameras."

"All right, the media and I get along OK, so I guess it's just a question of positions."

"Right. Second, we find that it's useful to balance a pro-life position with a little, well, to put it bluntly, death."

"What?"

"By death, I mean an "enlightened, nuanced" position on life."

"I'm nuanced. Go ahead."

"We recommend that you come out in favor of federal funding of the destruction of embryos. You distance yourself from the crazy Christians, for whom all life is sacred, you get away from being too closely connected with Bush -- he's a lame duck, anyway -- and you join most of the other 'moderate,' well-received candidates like John McCain on the side of warm and fuzzy research. It's a no-brainer."

"Well, politics isn't brain surgery, and anyway, I'm a heart surgeon, ha, ha, so sure. Line up the petri dishes. I'll go to the floor after the recess."

"Uh, Mr. Leader, we also see that your position on CAFTA proved unpopular. We recommend that you speak as soon as possible, to step on the President's success on the trade issue."

"Good. I'll do that. Good job. How much did we pay you for that polling?"

"Well, a lot sir, but you know, good polling doesn't come cheap. Only principles do."

Using government resources efficiently and effectively should be a goal of everyone in government and everyone who is a citizen regardless of party.

If you want to defund the NIH say so and tell someone to campaign on it.  A few campaign commercials showing all the cancer patients cured at NCI and all the treatments developed there and elsewhere using federal funds will be great for increasing next years budget for cancer and other health research.

when I read your reference to the expenditure of tax dollars on something the federal government doesn't have a constitutional mandate for (don't they love to do that?), but I think your analysis is spot on.  I think you, Neil, and JustMe are pulling me back a little, here.

You mean that Frist isn't building a big tent?

He is really just waving a small umbrella in really big and erratic arcs to cover different people at different times?

Maybe it is a southern thing-- Pander Bear Love?

For a doctor and a senator, two jobs that you might think require both intelligence and ego, Frist seems to be half-way ideal.

of this issue.

To take that one step further to its horrible conclusion: Why use mothers?  Why not just develop the technology and have them implanted in pigs, instead?  Then you can still keep them less than human...

Is it Frist's position that warrants this disavowal, or his flip-flop that does?

If Frist had been for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research from the very beginning, would your (collectively) wrath be lessened?

-TS

I'm more "fiscally conservative" than many, and there's no doubt in my mind that federal support is absolutely critical for scientific research.  It is one of the few areas in which government has a significant role to play.

(Whether one should funder stem cell research is, of course, a different issue.)

I was allready not keen on Frist - mostly because of his stance and tactics during the Shivo matter and his opposition to Stem Cell research.  The fact that he flipped on it doesn't get me to change my mind - he seems to be doing it from a tactical point rather than from the heart.  I think he was probably in favor right from the start, but just didn't have the guts to say so.

I like Frist and the idea of a Doc in the White House is appealing, but I think he has shown that he does not have what it takes.

I am please that the Stem Cell bill will probably get passed now, but I hate for Frist to pay such a high cost.

For the record, I don't think that the Federal Goverment should be spending any money on medical research, but since they are, I don't object to this.  As for those that do, how to you think the PETA crowd feels knowing that their tax dollars fund research on animals?  They probably feel as strongly about it as you guys do.

than his position.

And his overall inability to lead or move any of the GOP agenda forward frustrates me.

It's not his position that is getting people so riled up.  For example, George Allen supports stem-cell research and he gets mostly yawns on Red State (and enthusiastic support on some other conservative sites).

What irks conservatives about Frist is his lack of leadership and transparent political pandering.  In 2001, he was moderate on social issues.  In 2004-5, he "evolved" into a social conservative.  Since that didn't work out so well for him in the presidential polls, he's now going back to being a social centrist.  

This leads us to believe that none of his moves were actually from the mind or the heart, and that all of them were based on how many votes he could get.  That wouldn't be becoming out of a guy running for city council, let alone the White House.

Frist doesn't have what it takes to be president.  He just doesn't.

We've been using adult stem cells for decades and we only "discovered" embryonic stem cells a few years ago.  Given time great improvements will be made with embryonic stem cells but we have to be able to do the research.  Right now private industry will not fund this research because it doesn't have immediate applications as a product.  Federal funding is needed so that Universities and medical schools can develop the technologies that are necessary for private companies to develop products from.

Regarding this point:

"But hopefully, science will be able to catch up to these problems without having to use embryos."

I agree with you.  The most promising research in that regard is with Catherine Verfaillie.  She has isolated cells from adult bone marrow that  have many of the characteristics of ESCs but even she supports ESC research because the only way to learn how to make these cells differentiate into different tissue types is by conducting research on embryonic stem cells to learn how they become adult tissue types.

Pigs have strong, maternal instincts, unconfused by secular, feminist logic.

i am pretty surprised how quickly it seems that posters here have turned against a party leader...  i also think it is clear that he has made a bet that there is promise in moving to the center...  there may be something to the idea that just because way right-wingers are loud, they are not the majority?

he's a smart guy and spends his life thinking about these strategic moves...i think there is a clear opportunity in the next election for a more level-headed centrist to emerge as a winner.

its hard to keep government out of somethings but insert into others?  keep gov't out of stem cells but let gov't dictate rules on abortion?  keep gov't out of stem cells but let gov't dictate whether its acceptable to love a certain person based on their gender?

cant really have it both ways, i dont think

For one, Frist used misleading statements and hid some facts, which makes me wonder about his motives.  Here is my views in the long version:

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/455

The big one I caught was how he chose to say there was no impact right now on stem cell research in general, or even emrbyonic researxch.  So why would he admit in couched terms that there is no impact while proposing a change?

I think I agree with Hugh Hewitt on this, he has come to this compromise point honestly.  I honestly think it is wrong, but I can understand it.  The extra embryos from fertility clinics could be seen 'donated' to science like other parents donate their children's bodies.  I can see a connection.

The sad thing is it just is not needed.  I posted extensively here on why primate based stem cell research provides plenty of material to uncover how to control the transformation to a target cell type.

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/298

Even a medical doctor (he is not a scientist, they have a common understanding but are not by any means similar) can be mistaken about research and where it is. Doctors used known, documented methods to help patients.  They do not typically explore new boundaries in biology or medicine, and therefore can have an inaccurate impression of the entire research process.  

against Frist a good while ago for his utter inability to lead the senate.  This is more sort of like the last nail in the coffin or the straw that broke the camel's back for most of us.

sullying someone's opinion by dragging unrelated islamist terrorism into the fold?  whats the deal, bro?

but what do you think about the centrist platform idea?

"[P]ro-abortion"?  "[P]ro-toleration-of-Islamists"?

I have no idea what you're talking about; nor do I see why it's appropriate to continue the discussion on this thread.  

you are right that a centrist guy might appeal, but Frist has proven himself incapable of leadership-he can move to the right, to the center, he can stand on his head, but at this point he has made it perfectly clear to me that he is unfit for the presidency (actually he had already done that to me over the Bolton matter, this is more the icing on the cake).

Sorry, harvesting young humans for spare parts is not moderate or centrist.  The fact people do not understand the issue is different from what they would feel once they did understand the scientific facts on this subject.

I seen many a support become a non supporter when presented with the full, complete picture.

The moderates will be on the adult stem cell wagon.  It has shown results, for one.

All the talk about "surplus" embryos essentially stems from in-vitro fertilization. Truth be told, there is absolutely no way humanly possibly that all embryos created as part of in-vitro fertilization can be carried to term, which raises a serious question that no one wants to address?

Is it really a good idea to have a legal medical procedure that results in the creation of life that will ultimately be destroyed?

I'm not blind to the fact that this would make people upset to be told that they can't use the tools of medical science to create a child, but forget about ESCR, IVF creates these embryos. It's like having a child and an abortion at the same time.

Honestly, if as a society we want to provide outlets for unwanted pregnancies that aren't abortion (because making it illegal doesn't make it go away - it only makes it illegal), why not close off in-vitro to promote adoption?

this isnt about what youre making it about - there is real upside for treatment to make lives better.  you ever had someone close to you suffer with one of these diseases?  

youve got to think bigger picture here - im afraid thats the way centrists do - they outnumber folks as committed as you.

This is another big government spending program which promises the moon but might not deliver even a guy bending over with his trousers down.  The cost is too high, in both blood and treasure.

Dick Durbin, in praising Senator Frist this afternoon, mentioned that no profit will be gleaned from this laboratory experimentation.  It is a simple fact of nature that if you want something done cost-efficiently, quickly, and RIGHT, it should have a market incentive.  If they were serious about utilizing this lab experimentation to find cures for whatever they think they are going to cure, the market would take care of it, for as long as it was legal, and the federal government would stay far away.

This is buffoonery of the highest order.  Bill Frist, MD, has handed a victory with even greater emotional than logistical import to the enemies of abortionists, conservatism, and the Republican Party.

I hope he enjoys Dick Durbin's praise.  And Ted Kennedy's.  He will never receive the 2008 GOP nomination for President -- although he could conceivably pull a John Anderson and run third-party with Pataki.  In fact, he may not long remain majority leader.  His leadership has been questioned for other reasons of late, and we hear grumbling from Trent Lott's corner.  (Sometimes I really miss Nickles.)

... He's absolutely right.  

if I am going to vote for a centrist, I actually lean more towards McCain or Guliani-people who have been there their whole careers-Frist has totally killed my ability to appeal to me ever with his utter inability to lead.

As for a centrist platform in general, I don't think centrists win that often-they have to not only have a weak field to run against in the primary, but a weak candidate from the other party-centrists in general do not appeal to the base, and they often aren't trusted to come through on the things they say they will.  In general-they aren't trusted.

About the only centrist who has managed to have any success in recent years was Clinton-and part of his success was he was able to play the base like a fiddle, and appeal to them when needed,but move to the center when needed.

Every other centrist in the end lost big.

Thank you for giving me a warning.  I'll avoid linking to US COnstitution Party next time.

Should I change my signature, since it does mention the fact that I am a member of the said party?

think he can coach hil to a win?  i was surprised when she started getting all this media attention about 2008 and then DIDNT deny it.  shes gonna run.  shes smart and hes even smarter.

because you might make life better for other humans.

I really don't want to invoke Godwin's law, but there really is something Hitleresque about the whole "lets kill humans to help other humans"  Just doesn't sit well on my morality radar.

conclusion

but you are making the call that petri (sp?) dish samples are humans with the same characteristics and social value as babies, children and adults...it just cant be the same...everythings different about the two...if you wont entertain that idea, then you shouldnt be debating since youre mind is made up.

BTW, Thorley's particularly right about Frist's failings as a leader.  I'll be happy to see him go.  

Still, RedState's current approach of designating as "traitors" the majority of Republicans who share Frist's opinion on this subject is a good move.

the fact that the whole IVF industry creates embryos they know they were never going to use, and now wants to get more cash by selling them sickens me.

I admit that I am not all that comfortable with the whole IVF and other aspects of the fertility treatment industry-I think it suffers from a severe lack of ethics, and things like this just make it worse-they now have a financial incentive to create even more human embryos to part out for experiments.

I feel for people who experience fertility issues, but I am not super comfortable with the direction fertility industry has taken us.

I have said it once, and will say it again, just because we can do something, that doesn't mean we should do it, and it doesn't make it right.  

Should be "is not a good move."

How many innocent lives does he get to kill for a 'centrist' policy?

Either he has a pro-life principle or he doesn't.  It's that simple.

How many babies do we sacrifice before we determine that it doesn't work, Bill?

A million?  A billion?  More than that?

If Bill Frist is Senate Majority Leader in 2007, I'm no longer a Republican.  There are limits to my tolerance, and this exceeds them.

I'll vote for myself before I vote for any Republican candidate in the Senate or higher if this is allowed to stand and he keeps his job.

I never trusted him in the first place, but this is purely beyond the pale.

opinion that it is human life means I have no voice in the debate, well pray tell who is going to tell all you "part out the babies, it might help other people" when your ethics have crossed the line?

If my mind being made up on this issue prevents me from entering the debate, then what doesn't your mind being made up the other direction boot you out of the debate?

Also, while we are at it who says that an embryo and other humans "just can't be the same" do believe they all have human DNA, and believe it or not, every single human was at some point an embryo with the same number of cells found in that petrie dish.

back, and I don't even think he was all that perfect.

I almost wonder if a John McCain wouldn't do better as majority leader-I suspect that while he is in the center issues, he would by virtue of the position tell the Dems when they and their obsructionist ways can go take a hike.

Name one treatment that has been successfully conducted with embryonic stem cells.

However, there have been a multitude of successful treatments of diseases with adult stem cells.

Just because the scientists want to play God with embryonic stem cells does not mean that the Federal Government has to support them.

Don't believe the hype of the media, Bush was the first President to allow any federal funds to be used for research, in a limited, controlled way.  What this bill would do is open up the floodgates to all sorts of bad research.

If private research wants to pay for it, and take upon themselves the moral opprobrium of the destruction of life, so be it.  But the Federal government should stay out.

but many of those I have read seem irrational.  I thought that the tie that binds folks here is rabid pro-Republican philosophy.  I didn't realize it is rabid pro-life philosophy, down to the molecular level.

To read the descriptions of Frist on this page, one would think he is a combination of Aaron Burr, Dr. Mengele, and Hillary Clinton.

I may be way off base, because I haven't read or heard Frist's statement, but the arguments presented here don't seem to me to address a reasoned use of embrionic stem cells that are going to be destroyed anyway.

I suspect that Frist is on the right side of the issue, although as you say it may mean the end of his Presidential aspirations.  So what?  Too many politicians put their own personal ambitions above what they believe is right.

just look at her votes in congress compared to the speeches she gives to the party base.

Yep she is going to run, and she is going to try to do it the Clinton way-where you play to both bases, although I think she is in reality far more to the left than Bill (as dems go I would say he is more centrist than leftie) so she may have a harder time bolting to the center.

But she is going to run, the question is whether or not she can win, but with the Clinton plan and Clinton there she may be able to (although Kerry tried the Clinton plan, and he failed miserably).

how do you feel about the idea of letting people die of conditions that could be treated?

Frist isn't running for re election so at worst we get him as majority leader for another year and a half (I am almost hoping he will step down as majority leader and let somebody else fill his shoes-I would take almost any senator in the GOP at this point over Frist).

a right-winger actually trying to incorporate science into the argument!  i applaud it but just hope its not only because it suits your argument.

or let them die?  There isn't anything possibly in the middle there that we can maybe do?  ARe you saying that adult stem cell research and cord blood research have had no success?

Come on, that is a false dichotomy and you know it.  Try again.

 first sentence is the people with various illnessess.

Also, Charles Krauthamer has some interesting opinions on this issue-maybe you should try reading him.

but wouldnt it be foolish to limit ourselves to just one avenue when the other is likely to be more powerful?

it comes down to the fact that you believe that a spec in a petrie dish is worth the same as a human.  i cant do anything about that view.

definitely go read some Charles Krauthamer-it may be enlightening.

... against the President in principle.  in politics he probably held out as long as he could considering he didn't agree with the President's position philosophically.

the posters seem to actually think that dems are out to commit "murder"...  i mean give me a freaking break??

thanks for the interchange.

Yes, this is a Republican site.  Red State's leadership has even taking an official position against government funding of embryonic stem-cell research.

You know who else has that position?  President Bush, the leader of the Republican Party.

So you tell me who's being anti-Republican: Red State in its opposition to Senator Frist, or Frist in his opposition to the President.

killing life, and at the moment there is nothing that says funding for the research can't be raised privately.

If you feel strongly in the murder of human life in the name of saving other life, then by all means pull out your check book and write a check.

...where Frist ends up fallling on this issue, he's a poor candidate.  He does not organize well.  He might be a wonderful and decent guy.  But a Presidential candidate he is not.  

To beat Hillary, we need someone who will be a forceful advocate of GOP ideas.  Frist is not that guy.  For as nice as he is, I just can't see him maintaining the kind of aggressiveness he needs to compete over a year on the national level.

Did you join just today, to support Senator Frist, in the way some Democrats joined to support Senator Specter?

Doctors do not knowingly create embryos they never intend to use.  Eggs are retrieved, they are fertilized and hopefully will develop into embryos.  However, not all embryos will survive until day three or day five when they would be transferred.  In addition to that, there is absolutely no assurance that any embryos that do survive until transfer will actually result in a pregnancy nor will the remaining cryopreserved embryos survive thawing.  Untold number of couples have had to undergo multiple aspirations because they had an insufficient number of embryos.

Finally, embryos are never sold.  While an increasing number of couples are donating their excess embryos, most states prohibit their sale and no ethical fertility practice in those states that have no laws, would ever proceed with a transfer where the embryos were sold.

I'm currently (along with my wife) going through IVF.  It makes me angry when people talk about banning it and I would bolt the GOP in a heartbeat if it ever became the norm position of the party.  Why not ban birth control pills that prevent an embryo from implanting?

An embryo that is not implanted is never going to turn into a human without help from science.  It's not like a fetus in the womb that will (God willing) if it's left alone.  What is the difference between that and an egg?  Or a sperm?  An embryo out of the womb is only the potential for life - it is not life in my book.

I have tried not being emotional about this issue, but I find the arrogance of those who want to ban IVF too much to take.

taking of innocent human life as murder.

And some of us do in fact believe that the embryo that so many seem to think is useful only to used in experiments is a human life.

Experimenting on that life is in fact murder-even if the government doesn't charge it as such, morally that is how it is seen.

BTW my opinion doesn't apply to dems, but to people who think it is a great idea to use humans for experiments.  

Get with the program. If you are a conservative, you must accept the premise that the government should not interfere with property rights by regulating the environment or energy usage. It is a good thing to reduce emissions and conserve energy, but it must be strictly a voluntary undertaking.

You realize that this is a Republican-oriented web-site, don't you?  Casting aspersions will only get you banned, as it seems you should.

But yes, let's look at the science.  Name one thing that has been done with embryonic stem cells that has led to the cure of a disease?

I've been in more hospitals than I care to recall dealing with three cancers that my wife had, and yes, we relied on some pretty high-falutin science to cure her, thank God.

But there is a line between ethical research and un-ethical research.

Just because we can do a thing, does not mean that we should do a thing.

Slicing and dicing the building blocks of life, without constraint, smacks of the utter loss or abandoment of our own humanity.

Death and disease are horrible, and we are fortunate to have the miracles of modern science available to us to fight these things, and we are fortunate to have people seeking new and innovative ways to keep making more progress.  But to save a life, or just to make a life better to live, at the cost of a destroying an innocent life, degrades us all.

the official RedStates positions.

To read them see here: http://www.redstate.org/section/endorsements

If you want to do "infant stem cell research", knock yourself out.  It's not like it's against the law or anything.

But do not expect me to be cheerful and happy about having my tax money going to finance it.  My beliefs lead me to think that it is not right.  And while I am not so knee-jerk reactionary as to force my beliefs onto others, neither will I stand by and allow anyone else to force me to finance theirs.  Particularly when it involves what I consider to be human sacrifices.

Go ahead and toss your children into Moloch's maw and pray to him for whatever you want.  But don't expect me to help you build that idol, or feed the fires.  I'm opting out of that process.  

IMO, that's what it amounts to.  So far, the "promising research" isn't very.  The stem cell lines deteriorate fairly quickly.  And if they need to kill a few babies to save me, I'll just go ahead and die, thank you very much.

And that's the name of that tune.

So call him a failed leader ... dump on his Presidential hopes .. but a traitor ?

Still seems a bit harsh.

Jim Jeffords was a traitor.

right on.

Way back when people tossed their children into the fire, in hopes that the gods would grant them a blessing.

Now instead of tossing them into the fire, we slice them and dice them and pray to the gods of science that there will be some kind of a cure.

I don't think either is morally justified.

I especially don't think the taxpayer should be expected to fund it.

...you assume that science is rarely on the side of the right.  This is a common misconception particularly on this issue.

A great site for this issue in particular is Stemcellresearch.org.  It's an excellent summation of the science that contradicts what Frist said this morning and what so many in this debate claim.

Some things that I have found interesting in this debate:

Embryonic stem cells have yet to treat one human patients.  In the 24 years of this research (just in the last 6 or 7 with human embryos), the most this research has yielded has been tumors in rats.  Seriously.

Adult stem cells have been around for a comparative period of time and have proven remarkably successful because they have easier clincial application, do not involve the destruction of life, and are earier to find.  Bone marrow transplants are the most common form of stem cell treatments, but there ar emany others.  For instance, one man Dennis Parker has been successfully treated for Parkinson's with his own stem cells.  67 diseases are beeing treated (not cured yet), but treated.

This is not to say that embryo research will never yield anything.  My moral objection to destroying life for research precludes me from supporting that research, but there is a very solid scientific argument to be made for opposing embryo research, particularly when it comes to asking taxpayers to shoulder the risk of this unproven field of science.

... what makes it to the floor, the Democrats might have less to obstruct, and likewise we'd have less to support.

Then again, McCain's good on the judges.

Oh, hypotheticals.  How about Rick Santorum?  Then again, that's skipping Mitch McConnell, who'll get the post in 2007 anyway.

If you go to clinicaltrials.gov and look at diabetes - all types - you'll find that adult stem cells (specifically adult islet cells from the pancreas I believe) are the ones furthest along in treating diabetes.

Also, you might be interested in knowing that severeal of the studies cited by diabetes groups lobbying for embryonic stem cell research often cite stem cell studies to prove their case.  The only problem is the cases they cite actually use adult stem cells!!  

The issue is where do we prioritize federal funding.  If we were able to lay the moral argument aside, it seems more reasonable to focus on research that is yielding results while ensuring that funding for basic science on embryonic stem cell research remains in place.  

If destroying embryos actually starts to yield something, anything perhaps we can re-visit the issue.  

So what do you have to say to the people who don't like their tax dollars used to fund experiments on animals?  I think that the Government should not be in this sort of thing at all - it's one of many things they should not be doing, but I think you protest for the wrong reason.

...the federal government works.  We can be content to believe that this is about basic research, but we all know that scientists want more.

The more we open to the door, the more we will have to fund.  

Next they will say there aren't enough embryos being offered for reseach (only 2.8 percent of those stored at IVF clinics are actually available).  Then they will want to clone embryos because they can't get any reliable clinical treatments.  Then they will want unlimited access to federal funds.

Okay, it might not go exactly like that.  BUt look at the way the government works.  And think about that scientists will want.  

This is not about basic science.

me the mostin, McCain is generally good on-and I can't help but think as media hungry as McCain is, that he might not get a little bit of the bull dog spirit to move the agenda.

So you tell me who's being anti-Republican: Red State in its opposition to Senator Frist, or Frist in his opposition to the President.

What about RedState in its opposition to Republicans?

About 57% of Republican voters support human embryonic stem cell research and 40% of Republicans oppose the research, according to a survey conducted by pollster David Winston, who also conducts surveys for the Republican leadership in the House and Senate, the... AP/Las Vegas Sun reports.

Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=24197.

Although I disagree with RedState's position on this issue, I am happy that you folks have taken a position.  But let's not confuse what y'all think (or even what President Bush thinks) with the Republican party.

to experiment on them, but not do any animal research at all?

Yes that makes moral sense. NOT.

I can feed you one quick line-one involves humans and the other does not.  While I think we should treat animals as humanely as possible, they are not humans.  If I had to choose between saving my dog and saving my child-guess which one I choose?  No offense to my dog, I love her to death, but she is a dog.

to that extent you're right.  They will definitely want to do therapeutic cloning.

It seems to me that if you really want to stop stem cell research, you'd have to stop fertility treatments altogether. If a woman has some embryos frozen, and then, for whatever reason, doesn't use them, should we then bring them all to term? Should we not allow it in the first place?

Modern fertility treatments results in thousands of embryos being destroyed each year. Is that mass murder too? Comparing stem cell research to pagans burning babies is a bit over the top.

line item on the budget, you don't ever get to kill it.

So once we fund this, we are going to fund it forever.

I for one would rather steer the funding towards the research that works, and doesn't involve a moral quandry.

the embryos will be destroyed anyway.  So do we just kill embryos and get nothing out of it, or do we kill embryos and get a chance at curing some or even just one terrible disease(s)?  

can be donated and used. this would only be providing federal funds to do so.

I don't care about Frist's political chances, I am glad to see him support stem cell research. Isn't it hypocritical to say the government shouldn't support it because it's anti-life, yet let private institutions continue their research? Is Nancy Reagan a traitor as well?

An embryo is a future life if the donor parent(s) chooses to have it implanted otherwise, it is frozen for ever or swished down the drain. That's a tragedy.

Hmm, good point.  There is, after all, historical precedent for doing medical experiments on those who would probably be killed anyway.

So, is this a precedent America should follow?

with IVF for this very reason.

I don't think I am to the point where I would argue to ban it, but I do think the industry has suffered from some extreme ethical issues, and I have issues with all those embryos being created with no intention to ever use all of them.

But I don't think the destruction of the embryos is still an excuse to use them for experiments.

There are people on death row, should we use them for experiments, since they are all slated for destruction anyway?

It is those ethical lines, and where we want to justify the things we do, even when they aren't moral, because we justify it with a goal or purpose in mind.

My answer to infertility generally is "what is wrong with adoption?"

You're showing your Mobyness. Watch out for The Pile™.

Why don't you seek out his opinion.

And I consider the governments position on stem cells pretty much the same as abortion-at the moment there is no way to justify an outright ban on the research (after all how can you argue it is human life, when you let a woman kill her baby in her womb up until the dayof delivery), but I do think the government can take the stand that they aren't going to fund it.

I think permitting it, with requiring private funding is a compromise for the two positions.  The funny thing here is that the pro stem cell people seem to think there shouldn't be any compromise for those who are opposed.

It appears that you were already banned under the username Separate Church and State. You are once again sent to The Pile™. Do not return, please.

on that question.

I don't think stem cell researchers should work with  embryos with out the donor parents permission. In all cases some sperm and some ovum had to meet. It's those parents that should have a say.

I don't get that if you really believe a human life is at stake that compromise is an option.

the moment, and that one is the fed's don't fund it, but apparantly that one doesn't work for the other side.

I never would have thought to look under "Endorsements."

Why not ban birth control pills that prevent an embryo from implanting?

You will certainly find people in the pro-life movement who advocate exactly that, and refer to hormonal birth control as an "abortifacient".  IMO, this is a misnomer, as abortion is generally considered to be the termination of a pregnancy, and pregnancy begins with implantation, not fertilization (and even among women not using hormonal birth control, a sizable percentage of fertilized eggs end up being passed without implantation).

I also think that we need to stop using the terms "life" or "human life" in this sort of discussion, although I assume that's a losing battle.  The important distinction is personhood/non-personhood, rather than life/non-life.  A sperm cell is both alive and human, but I doubt anyone would refer to it as a person.  There are, however legitimate arguments on both sides as to the personhood of a frozen blastocyst.

...it's not IVF, per se, that is at issue.  It is the reckless methods that most clinics practice in order to achieve a successful pregnancy.

There's no reason you have to fertilize the extracted eggs -- and let's face it, it's a lot easier collect more sperm, so you don't even need to freeze it.

So why can't the clinics extract (what? a dozen?) eggs and freeze 'em, unfertilized.  Then, one at a time, thaw and fertilize.  If the blastocyst dies, that's sad -- but many in nature don't implant, either, and it's not as if you deliberately tried to kill it -- and then you thaw another egg and try again.

Instead, they create 10 or so embryos, 3 die, 1 is chosen and 6 are frozen.  Why?  Because it's cheaper to do it in bulk.  (Better, now we've got 6 units of Soylent Green to sell, and make even MORE money!)

THAT's what pisses me off: it's cheaper to ignore the moral dimension, so let's all play Three Monkeys-style See-No-Evil.

There ARE some clinics that practice one-at-a-time fertilization; check into it.  NOBODY except maybe Kazynski has a problem with them.

I wanted to point out. There is no such thing as a centrist position on abortion and EMBRYOTIC stem cell research. Stem cell research is a great and wonderful science, so long as embryos are not involved. In fact, the cells from embryos are inferior to the cells from the umbiblical cord and the placenta, and will not prove useful anyway. I'm all for centrist candidates and bi-partisanship, but don't expect me and the majority of the pro-life voters to compromise on this issue. One thing is for sure, though, if Bill Frist runs in the '08 election, I won't vote for him. He has lost my trust, and I feel that he has commited political suicide by changing his position on this issue.

It's life or it isn't. The destruction of human embryos for research is murder or it isn't.

Saying that researchers are free to do what they want so long as the government doesn't pay for it is akin to abortion in this country. The government doesn't pay for it, so why is everyone complaining?

People are complaining not because of who's paying for it but because the action represents the destruction of human life. (Although I know some are  against the federally-funded research component, but  that's not what makes this a charged issue.)

There's a follow-on to this that no one wants to talk about because it's "politically correct", but this debate has as much to do with in-vitro fertilization as stem-cell research. That display of "snowflake" children was appalling - 81 adoptions is not a real solution to 400,000 frozen embryos created for IVF and it's disingenous to even offer it as relevant.

If it's life that can't be violated for medical research then it's life that can't be destroyed in an medical waste incinerator because it's the by-product of IVF.

but I think the important distinction is not between life and non-life, but between person and non-person.  A skin cell is alive (and, given that it has a full complement of DNA, it's human life), but it's not a person (or else my daughter would be a mass murderer when she skins her knee).  

it isn't so much the method, but the ethics (or lack thereof) that surround it that makes it troubling to me.

I made one small point there, and did not state my beliefs (and haven't made my beliefs known on this subject anywhere on RedState), so I have to wonder why you felt it necessary to respond to me

Wrong comment...I'll be more careful next time.

it happens :)

It worked very well for us, and I recommend it very highly.  We're very glad the mother made the right choice.  But the discussion does get sidetracked this way.

IVF is a fact of life (no pun intended), and so are its unintended consequences.

"I don't think the destruction of the embryos is still an excuse to use them for experiments."

That's a position you can take, but what difference does it make how they're destroyed, whether through incineration or through experimentation?

As for the people on death row, for some of them I say, "Bring on the scientists."  But for most, I say that they are sentient beings, far different from a one- or two-celled frozen organism.

they already can be donated and used. this would only be providing federal funds to do so.

The issue is that a research organization that receives federal funds for ANYTHING they do cannot conduct experiments using embroyonic stem cells.

The best scientists in the country have been crowded out by this policy, which to me is entirely based in religion. I value mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and children more than a collection of cells which will never become any of the above.

. . .this issue isn't at the top of my list, but Frist's action is a sign that he's just another opportunistic politician and combined with his lack of leadership skills, it's enough for me to say it's time to cut him loose.

your opinion is the one that matters and nobody else's should?

So what about severely disabled people=maybe those who are in PVS-can we experiment on them, before we remove their feeding tubes?

Senate leader that was well and truly effective? from either party? I think you have to go way back to Sam Rayburn and LBJ to find one.

Someone noted above that Frist was Bush's choice. Maybe that's part of the problemn. The Founders intended Congress to be a separate branch of government from the executive, and even a bit opposed to the executive. Perhaps the President ought not be involved, even informally, in the internal politics of either the Senate or the House.

oh and wrong

"The issue is that a research organization that receives federal funds for ANYTHING they do cannot conduct experiments using embroyonic stem cells."

The federal government is already provided funding, the issues is whether they can create new stem cell lines by destroying embryos.

whats the point of this site if you expel people who don't see it your way?  

and although im a conservative by nature, there can be no question that the dems are the party that respect science as opposed to us.

since there are very few usable existing stem cell lines, as a number of them have been contaminated.

There's really no need for this sort of comment.

you gotta give him points for the username anyway.

I have no problem with experiments on animals.  Well, not NO problems, but by and large I think that they serve a useful role.  It's funny - Bill Frist used to 'adopt' cats back in his Med school days and they disect them, so he's now ticked off both sides.  All I was saying was that some people feel very strongly that it's immoral to do so and are not happy about their tax dollars funding that, either.  As long as the Federal government funds medical research, you will have this sort of objection.  I would rather is all be done privatly, but as long as they do, I don't see the problem with stem cell reserach and I support it.

I didn't mention the existing federally-approved stem cell lines because they don't warrant mentioning.

January 24, 2005 Los Angeles Times:

"All human embryonic stem cell lines approved for use in federally funded research are contaminated with a foreign molecule from mice that may make them risky for use in medical therapies, according to a study released Sunday."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/2
4/MNGCTAV6E71.DTL

has blown a lot of things, so it isn't like this is the first time he's disappointed Republicans.

He is ineffective. But he also lacks political courage and will. We attacked Kerry for being a flip-flopper, and I think rightly so. If anything a condemnation of Frist is a matter of consistency for conservatives.

I'm not very religious, though I am pro-life. What is ridiculous is the way the entire embryonic stem cell issue has been painted, by the media and Democrats (but I repeat myself). As plenty of people have noted... embryonic stem cell research IS LEGAL, IS ONGOING, and-- ready for this one-- IS EVEN FUNDED BY THE GOVERNMENT ALREADY.

Bush restricted that funding to existing lines, sure. His position is that no more life should be destroyed with taxpayer dollars, and that is a very reasonable position. For Frist to come out against Bush with so many important issues on the table is... well, shameful. I think it makes him a traitor.

Polling citizens on stem cell research is like asking me, a political science/philosophy type, to comment on design flaws in the space shuttle. I can do it, but my opinion in that area is worthless. Plenty of people don't know who the Vice-President is, let alone understand the moral issues involved in embryonic stem cell research.

How about this: let's give McConnell some more Republican Senators to work with in the next Congress. With that double upgrade, imagine the possibilities.

First of all, most clinics implant more than one embryo because it's not all that likely that only one will catch.  You do have some that will implant a whole lot (and then you run the risk of having a litter like that family who had seven) but this a risk most are learning not to take.

But people who try and have children this way do not have unlimited money - it is VERY expensive.  If you limit it to fertilzing one egg at a time just to satisfy you, it would make IVF cost prohibitive.  How about if I limit the number of times you have sex to whenever you want to conceve?  Or make condoms illegal?

The GOP needs to stay far away from this issue - it's a huge killer for them.  Just imagine an add with a couple and a cute little baby - voiceover says 'We never thought we would have a child to love, but thanks to the miricle of IVF now we have little Timmy.  But politicians like Sen. Sam Brownback want to take away our right to have children.  Don't vote for him on election day.'

It would make the pro life people look as heartless as the pro-choice crew did with partial birth abortion and cost a huge number of votes.  Including mine.  I will never vote for Sam Brownback even if he gains the GOP nomination in 2008 - if that happens, I'll vote Libertarian.

although im a conservative by nature

Yeah, and I'm Captain Ahab. Off to The Pile with ye, matey!

Because it's cheaper to do it in bulk

Your comments show that you do not know the pain, effort and soul-searching of the parents, particularly the woman, who must chemically alter their body through several cycles to produce eggs that seem so easy for everyone else.  Fertility is often a race against time.  IVF is not entered into lightly by either the couples or professional doctors.

NOBODY except maybe Kazynski has a problem with them

just too many plain ignorant, overbroad and insulting statements in your post...

moving on...

The fact that it's disturbing doesn't make it less valid, but more.

"It seems to me that it's pretty obvious that the only bright line is conception."

Doesn't seem that bright to me.

The stemcells are obtained from a blastocyst which is a fetilized egg only a few days old.  Here is what a blastocyst looks like:

http://www.advancedfertility.com/blastocy.htm

As I recall you are talking less than 100 cells.  Not really much to recommend it as a  human life but perhaps potential human life.  But we hault potential human life routinely.

I think Roe got it right.  Life is a process, not an event.  And if you read Roe, you will see that historically we have used other bright lines.  Even the religious lines have not always been at conception.

I was watching NOVA and I will recall an example they used as clearly as I can.  Suppose you are at an in vetro bank.  There is an explosion and a fire.  By circumstance, you have time to save a hundred blastocyst or one developed child.  But not both.  What do you do?

The answer is obvious to most of us.

As to Frisk, shoot him for it if you wish.  I have other issues with Frisk.  I think he has examined this issue and figured out he is on the wrong side of it.  And I think he is already suffering from his performance in the Schiavo matter.

You guys do know about the law in Texas for pulling the plug on babies don't you?  Parents sometimes don't have a voice.

imho,

Stanford

You stated:

"Modern fertility treatments results in thousands of embryos being destroyed each year. Is that mass murder too? Comparing stem cell research to pagans burning babies is a bit over the top."

Therein is the problem.  They harvest eggs.  So far, so good.  Then they fertilize them ALL!  Not one at a time, like would make sense.  All at once.

Why?  Well, I guess because it's cheaper than taking the effort to do them one at a time.  Gee, the failure rate is 50% or so, and since that's the case, let's fertilize ten or fifteen at once.  We can save the rest, right?

That's where my problem with it starts, not with the process in and of itself.

And as far as my comparison with Moloch being over the top, how is it?  The whole argument from the side that favors it says that if we kill the babies, maybe (bold emphasis on MAYBE!) science will let us live longer and be happier, or some such.

If that isn't the same principle as human sacrifice, explain the difference to me, because I'm just to hard headed to see it much of any other way, when you pare it down to the guiding principles.

Isn't it convenient when a given troll has such blatant problems with grammar and style? Oh look, someone pops up to defend a troll and he presents with an identically pathological prose style! Wait, looks like I spoke too soon. The screen name is "demhater". Nevermind, must be legit...

One small point, he has not offended all Republicans, just those who are very much pro-life in all it's meanings.

The Republican "Big Tent" also includes those that are not upset by his change of view on matter. Now if we can only get some fiscal restraint out of him...

I for one would rather steer the funding towards the research that works, and doesn't involve a moral quandry.

Now, I sincerely share that quandary, but "research that works"? Have you really though about that notion?

We oppose embryonic stem cell research because it involves the destruction of human life. Period.

Research doesn't "work". Research can have a lot of results. Some of them negative. Scientifcally, none of them are useless. And you never know when you embark on a given line of research what your results are going to be. (Whether or not it will "work", for example."

We just shouldn't be using this pragmatic-ish language. This is a moral and ethical issue. If we allow this notion that the "use" of research is the acid test, we lose that foundation and trade it in for allowing whatever other horrors might be on offer.

"You will certainly find people in the pro-life movement who advocate exactly that, and refer to hormonal birth control as an "abortifacient".  IMO, this is a misnomer, as abortion is generally considered to be the termination of a pregnancy, and pregnancy begins with implantation, not fertilization (and even among women not using hormonal birth control, a sizable percentage of fertilized eggs end up being passed without implantation)."

In a post above, conception was talked about as the bright line.  I agree that shedding a fertilized egg is normal and not traumatic.  But if not at conception, when?  We are right back to Roe.

I can shift a line backwards from where it is now based on science.  No problem with that.  But the line will always be imperfect and it will always be well beyond conception.

imho,

Stanford

Before you spread more misinformation (or worse).  

"`(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation."

There is NO financial incentive for fertilitiy clinics or for couples choosing to donate.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.471:

Frist wouldn't win against Hillary.  All this does is a)ensure he won't get the GOP nomination (the Christian base will either vote for someone like Brownback or take a winner in McCain, if you're going to settle) and b) give Bush a chance to flex his muscles a little with a veto.

Suppose you are a fireman, and there are 200 people in a burning building, and you only have time to save 5 of them-that doesn't mean the other 195 people weren't people and weren't worthy of living-it just eans the fireman couldn't save them all.

Value isn't placed on something by your ability to save it, but in how you treat it while you have it.

My wife and I had an early miscarriage.  We had no grief and no concern.  Our dog died, and we were sad.  One had a funeral, the other did not.

And we missed being a grandparant again - because of an early miscarriage.  The kids were disappointed but just didn't want to discuss it.  Had they lost one of the kids that came to term, it would have been much different.

We don't value developing embryos as we do children from my experience.

imho,

Stanford

Now get up off the floor. I do not support Frist's position because I think it will encourage the production and marketng of human life thru under the table deals. But the bill that Frist supports, as written with its nuances that stay pretty close to the president's principles, especially given the thoughtful reasons he gave, does not justify some of the more vitriolic criticism he is receiving.

It will be interesting to see where Sen. Allen comes down. I have not yet heard Sen . Brownback, whom I greatly trust as well.

But I do understand the suspicions of those that suspect political calculation of Frist's part. But it won't matter because he wasn't going to win the nomination anyway. He is so, the textbook example of why senators don't win presidency. except very rarely.

That wasn't the choice.  It wasn't which 5 of the lives you save.  It was 1 child or 100 blastocyst.  The choice is obvious.  

imho,

Stanford

be elected post 9/11/2005 and probably not even before that date. geven that we can't go back in time anyway, she will not be president and she certainly couldn't beat Dr. Frist whose hands have held an organ during many transplant surgeries with which Rodham is unfamiliar, a heart!

She is simply way too liberal to be elected in the USA. I suspect her post2008 carpetbagger act will find her in Canada or France.

flip-flopping should concern all Republicans, pro-life or not.

At the very least, shouldn't our Senate leader be able to pick a position and stand by it?

And, shouldn't all Republicans be concerned about the effect of his non-leadership on other matters? Such as tort reform, judicial confirmations, etc.?

and grieved all three of them.

So maybe some do.

I mean, if we're going to go overboard on hyperbole here:

Today, on the floor of the Senate, Dr. Frist betrayed the conservative movement, President Bush, the history of the Republican Party, and thousands of defenseless Americans.

There is only one explanation for today's Senate floor flip-flop: Bill Frist is a man without principles. He does not deserve polite acceptance of his treachery by any Republican.

Then, let's spread it around!

As an intelligence officer, I've seen traitors.  I worked with one--Brian Regan.  I've seen the damage others more well known have done--Aldrich Ames, John Walker.  And history tells us of the damage true traitors have done to our country and our allies--Benedict Arnold, Kim Philby, etc...

Words have their meaning cheapened if used too freely.  Augustine, I see your passion on this issue.  But, calling Senator Frist a "traitor" is, IMO, way over the top.

in your question nobody is deliberately seeking to kill any of the lives.

You are saying that who you choose to save indicates value, I say just because you would save the child, that doesn't mean the other lives have no value.

Stem cell research is a deliberate action to experiment on human life.

Your question is still a false choice.

The point the scientist (?), or researcher of whatever was making was that there is no equivalency.

If the choice was 1 child (age 1 year) or 100 children (age 10).  The choice is again obvious.  Or reverse it.  One child (age 10) or 100 children (age 1).  Use whatever age you wish.

Again, take a look at a blastocyst linked here:

http://www.advancedfertility.com/blastocy.htm

I can't dispute the NOVA commentater that it is a no brainer for most people.  It is because the equivalency of developing life with developed life doesn't ring true.

imho,

Stanford

hunter, when was the last time YOU went to Africa on your own dime to heal the sick?

Yeah...that's what I figured.

Gimme a break.  What's with the "burn-them-at-the-stake" zealotry here?

Could it be, perhaps, that Doctor Frist thinks that his move might lead to some CURES BEING FOUND?

For THIS, he's treated on Redstate with the same respect we normally reserve for fiends?

Pretty un-grown-up, dontcha think?

But I thought we were supposed to call you Ishmael?

If Bush were willing to get off his high horse of presidential majesty and wheel and deal and threaten, he could do what LBJ did as president with legislation and appointments and stop responding to every breath a democrat minority member makes. He treats his enemies (and I mean enemies!) better than his friends.

And a311, i think you hit the nail on the head with the Frist as Bush appointee problem. He leaves it all to "his man" and ignores the rest and never "stoops" to their level in his mind.

Robert Novak has coverd this weakness of the prez in his columns and rush comments often on the Dubya's reluctance to "silly the office" with politics.

So we get judges 4 years later than we should on appeals courts, etc...

program?  

Please highlight the portions of the bill which increase federal spending?  

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.471:

I must have missed them.

Adult stem cells have had some positive results, and have further potential.  But they work much like a bone marrow transplant.  They have also had horrible failures as well because the can be rejected (if not coming from the patient themselves).  Pluripotent embroyonic stem cells have the potential to be molded and cloned to fit donor tissue.  This would eliminate the possiblility of rejection, as was the case in the Korean breakthrough that prompted the topic to once again become prominent.

There is also a limited type of tissue that adult stem cells can become.  Well, really, and adult stem cell can only become the type of stem cell it already is.  In some types of tissues, they are hard to identify, and very rare.  And there are tissues that no adult stem cells can yet be identified.  It is hypothesized that pluripotent stem cells would be able to become these tissues.

And it seems another misconception is that embryos must be continually destroyed to get these cells.  This is false.  Embryonic stem cells continue to divide (cloned) in a culture.  The same sample can be used virtually indefinitely.  Which is the case now.  There are three existing lines of these cells now.  But the cloning ban has limited the amount these calls are allowed to multiply and be used.

So yes, you are correct in that adult stem cells also have potential and have had positive results, but I think much more information is being left out that paints a slanted picture.  In not a genetic scientist, so please correct anything that is wrong here.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/hopes/rltdsci/stemcell/z5.html

http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/About/FAQ.htm#4

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/FEEB827A1
2FF8FE5CA256ECF000821A2

http://cbs5.com/health/local_story_140195953.html

I'm pretty sure Augustine meant "Traitor to the Republican party/causes/principles" and not "Traitor to the United States". :-)  He could clarify, but that's how I read it.

And I'm pro-embryonic stem cell research, although I could concede opposition to the federal funding of such research as a fiscal conservative.

-TS

A concern, yes I suppose. I was not happy about Frisk's previous pandering on the Schaivo affair by voting to insert Federal powers into what was a state's right matter.  I am fairly sure that others who identify with many of the planks of the Republican party do not accept them all.

But when you are dealing with abolitionist positions on these sorts of issues, you are heading for a fall. True believers in what they see as the only true orthodoxy, be it social issues or fiscal ones, or immigration issues are in my opinion usually going to be disappointed at some point by those that do not see the issues in the same black and white that they do.

Old Sam Rayburn said it best

"Son, if you can't take their money, drink their whiskey, xxxxx their women, and

then vote against 'em, you don't deserve to be here.~Senator Sam Rayburn"

The bit about opinion was unnecessarily rude, and the gratuituous reference to Schiavo, along with the implication that anyone would support experimenting on disabled people, was just flame throwing at someone who did absolutely nothing to invite it. Just Me is normally exceptionally polite, and I didn't intend to make this into a big kerfuffle, but I really don't think Flagstaff deserved that response.

that Frist probably always held this position but deferred to the president until now for political purposes/

And, if so, do you think this is a miscalculation on his part in the gop primary game?

or, 2: that he has evolved and is speaking solely from the heart.

oe, 3. that he held the previous position for political purposes and has some dick morris polls?

This position of Frist is the biological equivalent of the recent Supreme court decision to permit the taking of one person's property for another's benefit.  Now the government will do the same with their very lives !!

In response to "There is simply no justifiable reason for Dr. Frist to have changed his position on such an important matter, except in some crass attempt to appeal to a biased media."

Frist should have first asked Sen. Kerry if the MSM's backing was worth selling out !!

Contrast Frist's position with that of another US Senator/Doctor (Tom Coburn of OK):

"Private research dollars are not following destructive embryonic research because that research, unlike adult stem cell research, has not produced any tangible results. Not since `cold fusion' has a scientific story received so much attention without the science to support the claims."

GO COBURN !!!

purely state matters or don't they have the right to due process under the FEDERAL constitution?

Of course they do. And in Shiavo, a state court order deprived a human living, non-terminal human being of sustenance thru the artificial means of a feeding tube and further forbade any one from giving her water or food by mouth thru the artificial means of a spoon, fork or glass or natural means of a hand.

A state government action demanded that she die.

She had a right to a federal review.

I felt the same way as you at first and almost responded.  But then I went and looked at the comments again. But given this:

"As for the people on death row, for some of them I say, "Bring on the scientists.""

In comment 141, Schiavo and other references naturally follow.  

At the risk of undercutting my own argument, I feel that I should point out that my wife and I had two misscarages (one in the 5th week and one in the 7th) and we grieved for them both.  In the case of the 7 week one, we had actually seen the heartbeat.  However, I don't see any equivelence between them and an unimplanted embryo.  To me, they are the same as sperm cells and eggs until they implant in the uterine wall.

This was the very first time that this argument was made in this specific set of circumstances, the argument to insert the powers of the Federal Government into an area where it had never been before that is.

I have always understood the Republican party to stand for small government and limited government intervention when it comes to states rights.  Other than the your argument on the issue which I will assume is driven by a deeply felt social conservative point of view, I heard no clamor from either the Federalist Society or other great conservative legal scholars calling for this intervention.

While I was disturbed by the whole chain of events, I was more disturbed by Federal intervention and over reach into this matter lead by Frisk, DeLay and others.  

We are taling about his politics.

I spoke, admiringly, about his medical mission work elsewhere in this thread.

Now, I have in fact heard what he said, finally, and I probably am more in agreement with his postion than not.

as a bit of hyperbole, as in "some of the people on death row are truly inhuman" -- mostly because he followed with But for most, I say that they are sentient beings, far different from a one- or two-celled frozen organism.

But even if Flagstaff were to advocate experimenting on death row inmates, which he doesn't, it's still a drastic leap to go from convicted murderers to innocent disabled people. Don't republicans usually get upset when people conflate pro-life with the death penalty? And it is at best disingenuous to present Schiavo as an example of a disabled person who might have been experimented on.

Even so, setting all that aside, I probably wouldn't have said anything if the tone of the post had been other than it was. Again, I  appreciate Just Me's usual politeness and sincerity, but this particular post was insulting and rude. Apologies for continuing to discuss the point, I'm sure Flagstaff doesn't care and it's starting to get rude on my part, but I just want to be clear about why I initially commented.

more classic conservative position and that the matter should and I think is being adressed in the state of Florida. Many of my fellow lawyer conservative friends agree with you.

But, given the application of the 5th amendment by supreme court precedent (that even sclia and thomas wouldn't overturn!! I bet!) to the states with respect to the the review of state death penalty applications and review for due process under same, i do not believ that coingres was out of bounds LEGALLY, especially since Article III expresssly gives congress the right to define federal court jurisdiction.

As to whether it was prudent for congress to have done so, time will tell.

I do not believ they will suffer at the polls for taking a strong moral stand in such an emergency situation especially since the measures passed with hardly any democrat opposition and some support. Voice votes in fact. Right?

Barney frank even supports  a federal law now covering all such matters. Which may in fcat make your point!

Sam was Speaker of the house. I recall that Mike Mansfield was fairly well respected, but he also had the advantage of leadership at the height of the democratic party wave in the 60's and 70's. Before him, was LBJ.

Since then, the numbers have tightened (witness the filibuster mess, party switching. etc.) and the job has naturally gotten to be tougher.

Which is all the more reason to be impressed by Newt and Denny's accomplishments in the house (but, no filibuster to contend with there).

"The bill is not written very well. It doesn't have the ethical construct that I believe we absolutely need." -- Sen. Frist, Congressional Record, July 28, 2005.

"As insufficient as the bill as written is, it is fundamentally consistent with the principles I laid out more than four years ago. Thus, with appropriate reservations, I will support the stem cell research enhancement act." -- Sen. Frist, Congressional Record, July 29, 2005.

What, one wonders, does the word "absolute" mean?

 So if your "mind is made up", then you cannot be debating?!?!?!

    You liberals kep displaying this utter relativism of any principle and then follow-through with showing it down everyone's elses throat.

  The pro-death-lobby in this country is clearly fronting murdering life for the sheer sake of raising our tolerance for the same (lack of) values. This is the reason liberals can never win elections. They simply don't understand that life is no suddenly starting when the unmbillical cord is cut.

   I'm sure liberals like Soros, Gates and the Google-mafia would have dished out trillions if they saw the potential here. Them not doing so is enough evidence to me that this is another scam of the left.

CAvH

 I dodn't know that applying scienctific methods now was the lithmus-test for being labelled a "right-winger" by the White Liberal Elite, but if so, that certainly is a good standard to follow.

  CAvH

 (PROUD right-winged scientist).

I sent a long letter (1,300+ words) to Bill Frist's office expressing my regret that he took this position, especially at this time.  I think Augustine is exactly right -- we should not be funding this research at the federal level.  We should be regulating it.  

I note that several biotech firms had a very good day yesterday thanks to Frist's speech.  The CATO Institute should be screaming from the rooftops about this government interference in the market.  If the market for these therapies is so large, and so many investors should be naturally interested in it (and since the government doesn't prohibit it) why does it take a speech from Bill Frist to goose the stock prices of all these companies?

Here's one further speculation, and it's just speculation:  a lot of researchers at the NIH are jealous of the researchers at Harvard and in California.  So they want the Federal money.  And that's why Frist is rolling over.  

  You cannot be a senate leader and blurt out one-liners like this. Especially when it cotradicts your own party's official line.The fact that Frist is a surgeon mens nothing. Physicians don't have ethical monopoly any more than they have the monopoly on scientific opinions. Myself being a future surgeon, I don't ever want to cheapen my arguments by using MD as some rhetorical leverage in any debate. NEVER!!!

   besides this, Frist shows an extreme lack of common sense, empathy and understanding of how the modern political climate works.

 1. He KNOWS that the loonielib left is using the stem-cell debate as another approach to desensitize the american public with regards to respect for life.

 2. He KNOWS that this is a core issue in the Republican party and being the second-ranking GOP official, his words (and personal opinions) count.

 3. He KNOWS that every letter in his words will be cloned and regurgitated ad nauseum by the MSM  from now until the return of Christ.

 4. He SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that after countless studies, research and trials, not only in America, but in Asia, Europe and in African research centers, the only clinicaly evident results so far has been from ADULT cells.

 5. He SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that life is precious in itself, regardless of science. When the same "science" is as full of substance as teleportation or cold fusion, it is expected of a health professional to show at least some moderation before jumping to conclusions.

 6. He SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that the only benefit of this to his own career is to self-detonate (unless he wants to be Hillarys VP candidate).

 7. He KNOWS what our president feels about this and how much it means to the entire GOP on a political, emotional and substance level.

 8. He KNOWS from his embryology class back in medical school that a blastocyst is ALL there is to a human being. Everything added after there is oxygen, nutrients and water.

 9. He KNOWS that medicine is an art AND science. part of science is to approach anything that "seems promising" with caution. Just like Monitz' lobotomy was mainstay, but wrong, so is Frists populist deviation from the use of scientific objectivity and caution before conclusions.

       I can only say the same as President Bush said upon hearing about Arafats death; God bless his soul.

 CAvH

   

Doctors have to fertilize the eggs upon transfer or they will die.  Cryopreservation of eggs has not been perfected, consequently you either use all the eggs or you lose the eggs. Full stop.

Also, you cannot have a woman undergo multiple egg retriveals as each aspiration poses a medical risk.  Currently, medical guidelines prohibit a woman from undergoing more then six donor egg cylces due to the risk of reduced ovarian function and other complications from repeated aspirations.

If an IVF clinic was on fire and you could choose to rescue one infant or a container that you know is filled with hundreds of fertilized embryos from several different families, what would you choose and why?  If you truly believe that every fertilized embryo is a human life and is sacred, you must morally choose the container and leave the living breathing infant to die.

I don't say this to be a jerk, just to further discussion of the fact that when faced with the real live prospect of lives of living breathing people over the possible life in the form of a fertalized embryo.

 The facts that cryopreservation is not "perfect" is no excuse for murder.

 Likewise, a woman facing medical risk here is something SHE has chosen. Just like having a face-lift, a tummy-tuck or breast-implants.

  Being willing to kill off your ofspring, just to maximize your chances to conceive others with minimum discomfort seems to me being the umtimate selfishness in this world, but I am sure the liberal left can cunjure up something even worse than that if given enough time.

CAvH

 ...of the sheer context it is raised.

   Every life is precious and the cynical rhetoric of liberals is not going to stop that from staying a principle. With regards to your scenario, what about doing both?? Surely you could carry an infant along the way with the container.

   Could just as well thorw the question back to you.. If you were in a burning house and had to slifde down a ladder, would you choose to rescue Terri Schiavo, Tom Cruise or Sharon Stone? Why is it so hard for peole too realize that such hypothetical scenarios are just that - hypothetical!!

   Could speculate furTHer here. If you, by stopping to eat could save 200 children from dying of starvation, why not? If you could save two humans with CRF by donating the kidneys of your braindead sister, then how could you not??

  My whole point here is that this kind of rhetoric is excactly what the liberals are unbeatable at. Individualized relativism mixed with cynical scenarios to prove their points. The scenarios themselves, besides being more rare than Howard dean's moments of clarity are so absurd that they don't do anything to solve a complex ethical issue besides showing the utter contempt for human values.

CAvH

Free markets are there to find profitable therapies and drugs but pure research serves a real and growing need for cures, and other basic science on which our society can advance.  Items that are low value to the free market but of high value to society.

Just as roads and other infastructure need to be there to the economy to advance, so do we need some pure research to advance the society and economy.

 the overwhealming advances of mankind have come from the individual minds of human beings, not out of a government office.

 We don't need anyone to fund ANY research. Makret and the forces there can freely regulate themselves.

CAvH

Yes, it's difficult (and invasive) to harvest eggs.  Yes, you'd want to continue to collect them in much them same way we do now, and you'd still need to harvest a lot of them -- all of which makes it very hard on the mother.  Hopefully we may in the future find methods of harvesting that are less difficult for the mother.  (I even alluded to this difficulty by contrasting it with the ease of collecting the father's, err, component).  But that's all beside the point.

The issue is what do you do with that collection of eggs once harvested.  Do you treat the product of fertilization with respect -- e.g. one at a time, hoping against hope that each one is THE one that survives long enough to make an attempt at implantation.  Or, given the race-against-time aspect, in that the hopeful couple would welcome more than a single child, do you fertilize a few, and without fail attempt to implant all of those that survive long enough? (In other words, fertilize at most three NOT ten, and hope for triplets but "settle" for twins or an only child if only that many blastocysts survive).

Or do you treat them without respect -- e.g. fertilize 'em all, EXPECTING to freeze most of 'em indefinitely or EXPECTING to turn them over to the Mengeles of the stemcell world?  (And pace' GreatDarkSpot #156 above, it's not to "satisfy me" -- it's to avoid the moral hazard implicit in deliberately creating CHILDREN whom you intend to kill or freeze forever.  At what price are ethics expendable?  I can easily dream up an ad to counter his.)

I really don't get your objection to the Kazynski thing.  My point THERE was helpful to YOU -- only fringe wackos (pick a nut; any nut -- I pulled "Kazynski" out of a hat) would object to respectful IVF that doesn't knowingly set out to deliberately create more embryos than are absolutely necessary for the given pregnancy.

I can understand if you disagree with my characterization especially as it hits close to home.  You may call them overbroad and insulting (even ignorant, if you choose, but you don't know where and with whom I have worked, so you might be a little surprised).  I did not intent to be deliberatly insulting to any hopeful parents -- although the deception practiced by some clinicians is worthy of insult.  However, there is no getting around the fact that I think deliberately creating more embryos than are necessary, treating some as "extras" and freezing them indefinitely or "donating" them for dismemberment is WRONG.  If that hurts your feelings, sometimes the truth hurts.

I hope you and your wife are successful, and wish the best for your children.  All of them.

Egg freezing simply is not viable at the moment nor are the long term implications of children created from egg freezing yet known as we are only know seeing some children born as a result of that technology.   As for the offspring line, we will just have to disagree as I do not see a three day, eight cell embryo as my offspring. Under your analysis, it can be argued that you lose a couple of million offspring each day (assuming you are a man) and a woman sacrifices a potential offspring every 28 days or so.

Re: They have also had horrible failures as well because the can be rejected (if not coming from the patient themselves).  

Tissue rejection is potentially a problem in ANY transplant where the genetic material is not from the recipient. That definitely includes embryonic stem cells! I'm not sure why you would think otherwise. Moreover, in animals at least (I don't think human trials are even done because of the danger) "successful" embryonic stem cell transplants often lead to megalomas-- catastrophic cancers which rapidly kill the recipient. At this point, adult stem cells look a lot safer and, if a way can be devised to use the recipent's own stem cells, the rejection problem would not exist either.

But we should also be honest about one thing: it is quite possible that no stem cells research will ever lead to a cure for anything. I would be surprised if that's the case and it's certainly not a reason to desist from research, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.  The notion that there is a proven cornucopia of cures to be had from stem cells is, so far, a hope only, not a fact.

Givin the real choice of

1 infant

 or

100 fertilized embryos

What would you choose?

Just because the answer shows a value judgment that you don't want to admit does not make the question any less valid.

Blood cells are both living and human ( full DNA ), but that does not make me a mass murder for shaving in the morning.

 Sperm or eggs are not offspring and neither is their ability to grow and develop into a human embryo without fertilization.

 Your attempt in ridiculing arguments here by

erronous and simplstic reasoning that is clearly without and sense doesn't make these millions of sperm or these eggs more of an embryo.

  Your argument that freezing ovums might endanger them to increased birth defects or decreased viability just reinforces my point that every IVF attempt should be done on an egg-to-egg basis only, with no multiple implantations done.

 Just a question here.. If your cutoff is not 8 cells to be considered offspring, then how many dcells do you need?

 CAvH

Seeing that there is no way I could save the embryos because I don't have anyway to keep them cold except maybe in my freezer, which still is not cold enough. Therefore the embryos will die if I grab them or not. The only one you could actually save is the infant.

The idea that research in a "government office" is somehow not a product of "individual minds"; that government funding of research is primarily accomplished by hiring individuals to work in government offices; that government funding is, ipso facto, not competitive; that a knee-jerk appeal to capital markets will ensure our long-term technological competitiveness.

Enough said.

 First of all; This is not a medical malpractice case in front of a jury, so stop forcing me to answer your simplistic questions. Certain questions cannot be answered and I think it is pretty clear these are one of them.

 My whole point is that life is precious in itself and to the person living it, the most valuable thing.

 Regarding you being a validator of a questions credibility, I think my right to maintain the fact that every life is precious makes it clear to me that I am not going to compare these things:

  I could ask you something in a similar context with regards to rhetoric>

   If you have the option of extracting information about Bin-Ladens whereabouts from a Gitmo-detainee by smearing him in pigfat and threatening to shoot him unless he gives out all the information, woul you do so, if you KNEW it could avert another terror attack??

(Or to say it like that; are you so concerned about the "civli liberties" here that this in itself is more important than saving lives)?

Concerning your last science disuptas, I just want to enlighten you :

  Blood contains mostly mature RBC's. They lack nucleus (so they have no DNA).

   Likewise, what saves you from bleeding to death, platelets are also without nucleus. thiink about that!!!

  And those tiny granulocytes that phagocytose the Staph bacterias that enter your skin as you shave, die in the process.

   I would strongly reccommend you to seek out an hematologist if you suspect your blood cells contain the full DNA content, since this is often a serious sign of some underlying problems with your bone-marrow.

  (Just do not drag me to court and put me in front of your lawyers hand-picked jury for this).

  The Tort-tax is high enouhg as it is.

 But I am sure all these IVF-clients would turn around and sue you for pain&suffering since you didn't carry out the entire freezer.

 CAvH

Not THAT miserably.  It sure wasn't a Walter Mondale moment.

 I personally think embryonic stem-cell research should be banned entirely, not simply meekly restricted by witholding federal funds.

  Likewise, prohibiting multiple fertilizations at the same time would solve this entire problem and make life easier for the snowmoon.

 CAvH

My whole point is that life is precious in itself and to the person living it, the most valuable thing.

If you have the option of extracting information about Bin-Ladens whereabouts from a Gitmo-detainee by smearing him in pigfat and threatening to shoot him unless he gives out all the information, woul you do so, if you KNEW it could avert another terror attack??

Life is precious unless it belongs to someone who just happens to know where the enemy is.  Or did you mean you wouldn't really shoot him if he doesn't talk?  I notice there's nothing in your scenario that says this potential informant is actually guilty of anything besides knowing Bin Laden's whereabouts.  How does it change the hypothetical if this man's family is Bin Laden's hostage, certain to die if he cooperates?

Certain questions cannot be answered and I think it is pretty clear these are one of them.

Yeah, something like that.

Which is more important:  (1) averting terror, or (2) treating prisoners humanely.

Which is more important:  (1) one live infant, or (2) one hundred live embryos.

These can be hard decisions, indeed.

  These are not questions that can be answered in a simplistic yes/no.

  Likewise, as another member pointed out, trying to save cryopreserved embryos from a fire would be futile iwthout bringing out the entire fridge. Although this is a bit off the side of topic here, it certainly is fair to ad this in as long as the original question is as hypothetical as it is.

 regarding MY question, I see no problem in stepping up the interrogations of islamofascists a bit more.

 Learn from Israel. They got it all right and that's why the islamofascists have to find a sifter tarrget, like the USA.

  You liberals will never undertand what evil we are facing until you face it. A lawyer threatening with lawsuits is not going to help you then.

 CAvH

         

You are correct, it is all potential.  No real proof that anything will come of any of it.  But other countries are racing to be the first to discovery, prompting us to beat them to whatever the end result may be.  In Korea, the embryonic stem cells were cloned to the patient, which does, in theory, eliminate the chance for the rejection.  That is what I was reffering to.

as I do, then Augustine's language is way too harsh.  It's juvenile, IMO.  I submit that HE is the one who needs to chill.

Read Frist's speech on this issue...it's on Real Clear Politics.  Are these the words of an unpricipled, treacherous man?

If Augustine feels free to dish out harsh and unfair language, he's certainly ready to take it. He and his supporters are certainly in no position to tell anyone to chill.

Likewise, as another member pointed out, trying to save cryopreserved embryos from a fire would be futile iwthout bringing out the entire fridge. Although this is a bit off the side of topic here, it certainly is fair to ad this in as long as the original question is as hypothetical as it is.

I think part of the premise of the question is that you can save one or the other.  How that's accomplished is beside the point.  On the other hand, it's not my question.

Learn from Israel.

Israeli Court Bars Routine Use of Force in Interrogations (September 1999)  Did they change their minds later?

I see no problem in stepping up the interrogations of islamofascists a bit more.

Seriously?  No problem?  Here's a small one:

The former Japanese prison guard was tried by the Allies after World War II for war crimes. In 1947, a U.S. military commission, citing the Geneva Conventions and customary international law, convicted him of compelling prisoners of war to practice saluting and other military exercises for as long as 30 minutes when they were tired. His sentence: 12 years of hard labor.

There's a certain lack of integrity demonstrated by holding ourselves to a lower standard than we held our enemies only sixty years ago.  This small problem of our national identity, our national character, leaves asside the larger practical problems in which we get bad information from tortured suspects and inspire the victim's friends, family, and countrymen to rise up against us.

Do you not see these things as problems, or do you think they're less important than something we gain from torturing?

that using the same epithet on Frist (with plenty of overheated rhetoric to boot) that we use for the men who tried giving West Point to the British (Arnold), sold out super-sensitive SIGINT technologies to the Russians (Walker) and compromised the identity of covert intelligence sources (Ames)is at best irresponsible, and at worst disgusting.  IMO, it's not something an adult should do.

If, on these pages, we can freely call a man like Bill Frist--a good man, with whom many of us strongly disagree--a "traitor," then I'll bet we can call anyone anything.

As you say, harvesting eggs is invasive.  Not only that, it's expensive.  The reason they are ferlilizing the whole bunch is because they don't know which ones are going to be successfully fertilized.  And when they are fertilized, some will be better than others and those are the ones that will be implanted (up to 4) and the rest frozen in case a pregnancy does not develop.  Not only is money an issue (not so much for us) but time is.  Also, if you freeze eggs after you take them out, it does make them harder to fertilize.

So far, with regard any embryos that we do not use (if there are any) we will have them stored for 3 years.  Beyond that, we don't know.  I can't say that I think of them a children any more than I do my sperm.  I don't mind if you do, just don't try to stop me from having children.

Politics is about getting elected AND for the really great leaders not compromising too many of your principles.

Even Reagan compromised. He allowed larger increases in spending than he would have preferred in exchange for tax cuts and increased military spending--smart move.

President Bush when he decided not to fight the prescription drug benefit for Medicare. This is a battle we probably would have lost (and lost the house and Senate). We lost the argument over providing the elderly with health care in the 60s. Why fight a losing battle again?--Smart move

If another President can be elected in 2008 who opposes abortion, Roe v. Wade will be overturned. We have not been able to win the killing of a nearly fully grown fetus folks! Again, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO KEEP THE INNOCENT UNBORN from abortion. Do you think we can stop the killing of a few cells???

We have not even been able to stop abortion. If Frist is able to use his position of stem cell research to get elected, by sacrificing a few embryos destined for destruction anyway and might (however slim) help medical research, it at least gets us to the starting gate.---Smart move Frist.

One caveat: This assumes, however, that he can be trusted to appoint strict constitutionalists to the high court.

Nothing in your last series of posts has squat to do with either Bill Frist or stemcell research.

If you want to flog this rented mule then start a diary and flog away. Don't do it here.

From listening to what Frist actually said and proposes:

It has been spoken about for some time that the embryonic lines currently in use by govt. funded research are not technically adequate for meaningful research. Frist is proposing, if I understand his current position, that the current line should be supplemented with fresh lines. This will provide the already apporoved research with technically adequate  lines that will yield what are believed to be a good chance for successful research. It seems to me that if we don't get good results from research due to inadequate technical means when good means are available, then we are wasting all of the money involved. One of the pitfalls of the President's policy is that he is trying to take a middle path in a highly charged topic. If we want to argue that all embryonic research be halted, I would point out that in the current MSM/DNC/lefty envirnoment, we have already lost. The President did in fact allow the 30 lines to go forward. The MSM etc. are ignoring as best they can the good results of non-embryonic stem cell research, while ignoring the lack of actual good results from embryonic stem cells.

IOW, a large piece of this is in the pubilc perception, like abortion. This is like abortion about 15 or so years ago, when the pro-abortionists changed the debate from pro-abortion to pro-choice, and pro-life to antichoice.

Just watch how the very term, "embryonic" will go away soon, to be replaced by something less guilt inducing.

But I would also suggest that calling Frist so loudly a traitor is not helpful to our side, but is very helpful to those who want unlimited access to harvested human embryos. This is a very complex issue and we should allow the other side to resort to and depend on easy characterizations.

   First, I have to say that I disagree wih the Israeli court excerpt you are citing. On the other hand, I am sure this is only a play to placate the left of Europe a bit. It is also very likely this is incitied by some opportunistic attorney that wants his 5 minutes of fame. In ay case, the Israelis don't drag terrorists to open court so they can play out their dramas to the press as long as they can avoid it and good is that.

  I am sure this jap was guilty of a bit more than force-marching prisoners.

  Nonetheles, if so was a fact, I do not agree with the 12 years for that, but that's just a quantitative disagreement.

  also, comparing japanese prisonguards with our soldiers at Guantanamo is insane and you have to be a liberal Bush-Basher to actually be able to do so.

   Neither do I for a second think these people get angry with us because of you lefties fabricating this torture crap 24/7. These ppl have always hated us, always will and whether you step on their "civil liberties" one extra time or not wil not change that.

   If you think we are soooo horrible here, then I suggest you emigrate to these countries where it is all that much better.

CAvH

 

You are a technician and you know that the container can last till redeposited into a new bank.

So you can save

1 infant

 or

1 self sustaining container of frozen embryos containing ( as many as you wish ) fertilized.

It's a moral quandry because no comapsionate person could let a living breathing infant die to save a container full of fertilized embryo's no matter how many lives could be saved.  The question is quite valid as is because it allows you to see that even a pro-life person, if pressed, will make a value judgement to save 1 infant over any number of frozen embryos.

To put the question in a different light...

You can save

 1 infant

or

 100 infants

You can save

 1 child

or

 100 teenagers

You can save

 1 teenager

or

 10 infants

In all of these previos senarios, all things being equal, you will save the larger number of people. But once we move to the realm of frozen embryo's.

You can save

 N living breathing people

or

 M frozem embryos ( self sustaining container )

And I would like to hear from anyone that would save the embryos over the living breathing people.

Oh, and as for the "Ticking bomb" question, you morally must do what is necessary to save lives, BUT you must then turn yourself over to the authorities one you are done for your unethical treatment of the prisoner.  To do otherwise would place yourself above the law for your own, personal, moral beliefs.  No matter how noble, once you place yourself above the law you have no place in a civilized society.

Even Reagan compromised. He allowed larger increases in spending than he would have preferred

Not true.

The 8 budgets Congress passed under Reagan cumulatively contained less spending than was proposed in the 8 budgets Reagan sent to Congress. This is a matter of public record.

 The pro-death lobby is using embryonic stem-cell research as a wedge to lower peoples loathing for abortion. Just another of the stepping stones the liberals use when they cannot get it by frontal attacks.

  At the same time,, they are pushing stem-cell lobbyists in front of them along with the Harvard-elite. These people are not fair or neutral when they consistently ignore the facts of adult stem-cells, because the monetary gains on blastocyst research has such a huge potential if let loose.

  btw, the Harvard elite are the same people that make it a living to fly around the country testifying as "expert-vitnesses" for the trial mafia. They never practice medicine or sound science, but rather prefer to enrich themselves on hindsight and bogus retrospective studies stabbing their fellow scientists in the back.

CAvH

 How many RBC's did you "kill" this AM whie shaving?? ((hehe).

 You keep throwing up the same scenario. You don't even bother to move the light at a different angle, at max, you replace the lightbulb for a redder one, but that's about it..

When it comes to the embryos, I think one of our colleguaes here had a good point when he underlined the fact that a cryopreserved container would be neccessary to enable survival, even for less than a minute. Now you can spin this frther on and tell us all that there was a cry-lab waiting outside the burning building while I was running into the lab. I am waiting.

  The bottom line here is that by denying any cryopreservation at all (making single implantation the law) we would not be putting unborn lives at risk. Surely this would be less convenient for the 40-something career-woman that needs to express-conceive, but I still haven't found anywhere in the constitution that states the right to conception without hassle.

 When comes to your naive approach to fighting terrorism, I can simply say that we are not obliged to abide by all the regular rules of conduct in case of warfare. Should Washington now turn himself in after the war for inciting murder as well?!?! Please try for a second to GRASP the concept that war and conflict are exceptional circumstances requiring exceptional measures. If agents of the CIA had to "turn themselves in" every time they had "violated someones civil liberties" we would not have any more liberties, because your buddies from Muhammedastan would have overrun the free world.

 You liberals are placing yourselves above the law all the time, so don't try to dupe anyone else into thinking you are all so fine&noble.

  Anyone that is MORE concerned about BinLadens civil rights than his victims have no place in a civilized society in my opinion.

 CAvH

 and government research is all about hiring individuals, then what is the problem with leting private investors and companies hire the same people and let us taxpayers keep our money to ourselves?!~?!

CAvH

of th answer to the question?  

Name calling won't help you argument either.  I, in fact, identify strongly with the old "finacial conservatives" republicans as opposed to the tax cut, spend, and regulate republicans of today.  So take your liberal attacks somewhere else because I won't bite.

By making single implementation the LAW republicans are once again abandoning their principals of small government and non-interference.  The reason that people have so many taken and fertilized is that extraction is a dangerous procedure where continued asperation of the overies can cause serious and irreversable damage.  Because of this doctors like to get as many in one shot as they can.  I don't think it's wise to once again meddle in the lives of well meaning individuals in persuit of child.  I think it will only paint republicans as bigger masogonistic bullies than they already are.

So the CIA has the right to undercut civil liberties now too?  Last time I checked they require a court order when dealing with US citizens.  But I guess we abandond the 4th amendment a long time ago, why not the 5th as well.

War WOULD be different, but congress nor the president has declared war on any known country or patries.  The "war on terror" hold no more legal water than the "war on drugs".  The courts recognize that not all procedures or liberties are availible in wartime, but only when the courts are unavailible.  They do not recognize a restriction of liberty when the courts are operating normally.

totally agree

 You have haggled here in defense of legalized murder, islamofascism and- in latest reply, the junkie-lobby.

 I am not attacking you, but simply labelling you of what I perceive you of being. If you are pro-death, pro-drug use and pro-terrorist-rights I really cannot see any conservative values here. Likewise your "masogonistic bully" talk reveals you more than anything else. Enough said.

 When it comes to aspiration of ovaries, I agree with you that it is a risky procedure, but so is liposuction, buttocks implants, rhinoplasty and elective C-SECTIONS in order not to have stretchmarks. That doesn't deter people from chosing these procedures. It is NOT a human right to conceive and the women that seek IVF,  took a calculated risk in doing so.

  Wanting to lower your risk of a voluntary, elective procedure by taking other lives is NOT a human right either. If you take a chance you do so and letting the most defenseless step in the line of fire instead of you is unacceptable.

Surely, finding techniques that would decrease this risk  is not an unsurmountable task as science will evolve further, but in the meantime, we should not lower our ethical standards just to convenience anyone. If these women were so concerned about fertility, maybe they should not hold off their 20 most reproductive years in order to climb the career ladder one step further. You cannot have both in life. You make choices and you stick to them. The problem with liberals is that they always want it all with no effort, no sacrifice, no struggle or no costs.

  Certainly, there are young women with fertility problems as well, but that being unfortunate (just as male sterility is) is not an excuse to endorse depreciation of life.

 When it comes to the war on terror, I think it is quite clear to any thinking being that parading islamofascists in an open court would do no good besides filling pockets of a few high-profile liberal lawyers. The only ways we can win against these people (who wants nothing but kill every "infidel" in their way) is by making it harder for them to exploit our legal loopholes. Islamofascists from the Mosques of Michigan to the Madreases of Pakistan are laughing at all the useful idiots in the west that are guaranteeing THEIR rights to kill nad enslave everyone that don't agree with them.

        9/11 might not be considered a war in your eyes, but the vast majoriy of Americans disagree and do not want these people to have the same "liberties" as you and me. Whenever you parade in the streets and rant endlessly over the same slogans, think about how fortunate you are to live in a country where all your political opponents do is laugh at your foolishness instead of chopping your head off ;)

   Again, if you are so concerned about losing the 4th and 5th and XYZ amendment, then maybe you should move to Teheran, Pyonyang or Havana where I am sure you will find liberties and human rights more to your liking.

 (Just a suggestion). ;)

btw, What ever happened to the "millions of liberals" that was going to move to Canada if W was reelected?!?! (another promise to good to be true)

CAvH

 If we have so many "well meaning individuals in persuit of child", I am sure the same ppl have no problems with adopting a child either.

  Certainly must be much safer than  risking "serious and irreversable damage" right?

 CAvH

Just because I'm against the unthough policies pushed through in a vain attempt to police a "war on drugs" does not make someone pro-drug, just anti-insane gavernment policy.  As a direct result of this crackdown we have things like "asset forfeture", loss of 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment protections, CIA intenvention in third world nations to place "friendly" dictators like Bin Laden in power, and many other costly abominations.  Mass murder financed by the taxpayer and carried out by the military complex without proper oversight or accountability is wrong no matter what the goal is.

And just because the majority of the country has been duped into believing something does not make it true or legal.  The whole point of the constitution is that it protects the right of the minority from the tyrany of the majority.

So if upholding the constitution, property right, rights to petition the goverment for redress, wanting checks and balnaces, and of course truth and freedom does not make a conservative these days then I guess I'm not.

Mass murder financed by the taxpayer and carried out by the military complex without proper oversight or accountability is wrong no matter what the goal is.

Do you perceive that this has happened? Where?

 snowmoon is the only conservative I know about that supports:

  -full "civil liberites" for terrorists.

  -is pro-abortion

  -freedom for SSaddam

  -wants convicted cocaine dealers to keep the

   assets of their drug-tradings.

  -IVF for anyone at any age no matter how many thousand embryos that are killed in the process.

  (I am sure it is possible to be cons3ervative with one or two of these ideas (??), but all of them)??

 Conservative, hah ..

  Why are liberals ashamed of calling themselves so??

CAvH

 and don't blame our conservative judges for stealing our properties in the name of the state. It was LIBERAL judges that formed the majority endorsing stealing others property.

  Just because Howard Dean said otherwise doesn't make i right, does it?

 CAvH

Iran contra...

US support of the taliban

US support of Bin Laden

US support of Sadam

US support of a military coup in venisula ( sp? )

I'm sure I could dig up more, but that's a topic for another story, not this one.

since it was protecting the white minority, I mean.

"The whole point of the constitution is that it protects the right of the minority from the tyrany of the majority."

 So you prefer the minority tyrannizing the majority??

 Like when:

 Liberals have fillibustered tort refrom for ages.

 liberals are fillibustering judges they don't like.

 Liberals are fillibustering anything they don't like.

 if anyone is duping anything it is you liberals and your chronic race-baiting, woman-baiting and

eco-baitng at any time. Just wake up and realize that this is not the 70's anymore. You are the ones with a KKK-member in the senate, not us. We conservatives have just as many means to be heard as others now. The MSM cannot brainwash ppl anymore without being held accountable.

 (Funnily enough, when it REALLY mattered with regard to race equality (1861), you liberals were against THAT also).

 

Well, then, thank goodness for G. W. Bush, who has ended those policies. See? Progress is being made.

Iran contra...

  ***Yawn.....

 Surely not the smartest thing, but as far as I remember, this was a failure in deling with hostage-takers and nothing else. Liberals would have tried to "understand" the, instead.

US support of the taliban

  **Could you enlighten me to the fact that the taliban even EXISTED when US supported the Mujahedin Guearrilla?

US support of Bin Laden

  **Snce he was part of the Mujahedin, yes.. Are you saying that US supported him after that??

US support of Sadam

**Yawn, how many decades ago was that?? Didn't we make up for that you think? I could just as well have blamed Clinton for supporting Chinas massacres of 10000 students at Tianamen.

US support of a military coup in venisula ( sp? )

???

I'm sure I could dig up more, but that's a topic for another story, not this one.

True,

 I don't have to dig for anything, because liberals are CURRENTLY supporting terrorists all over the globe, in order to ensure their "civil liberties" are intact.

CAvH

 Don't you know liberals need hindsight and blame the way I need rice and water?

 CAvH

to attack.  The minroy party wether Democratic or Republican have used the fillibuster to prevent marginal laws, judges, etc from going through.  Just because we are now on th receiving end does not make the fillibuster any less of an intrinsic part of our heratage.

And stop calling me a liberal, I have stated my beliefs and they are in no way liberal.

 Well, you surely have stated your beliefs and last time I checked they were ALL liberal values to me, so all I can reccommend you (despite how much I don't want to), is to look out for your interests and vote in coherence with so.

 Regarding the use of fillibuster, I think it is clear that both use and magnitude so has been clearly dominated by liberals.

  Even if so is true that conservatives have used it in the past, that is nothing I agree with. Neither is it "part of our heritage" and even if it was, so what!!! SO was slavery, but I don't expect anyone besides liberals to scream about how emancipation is "unconstitutional".

 Maybe we should defer the last question to KKK-Byrd.

CAvH

For humane treatment for all, even SUSPECTED terrorists.

Is a pragmatist on abortion.  "Sometime the least bad option".

Sadam was a horrible and corrupt man, but that does not give us juristiction to "take him out".

Asset forfeture has nothing to do with convicting someone.  All you have to be is the wrong place at the wrong time and you can have cash, property, cars, anything seized because the police BELIEVE is was the proceeds from a crime.  No court, no jury, no justice and no appeal.  Courts take property all the time, but there is due process involved and I have no problem with that.  But hey, protery rights and the 4th amendment don't matter do they?

As for IVF, I have made no such comments, so stop attempting to fill my mouth with words.

 Since you are not liberal, could you tell me ONE of these things:

  -abortion

  -the current tort climate

  -pulling out of Iraq

  -taxation

   (for starters)

  that you disagree with the liberal opinion about?

Taxation.. taxes should be reduced in accodance with reduction in spending in the federal government, and none of this slight of hand using "off balance" items like SS surplus to claim that you are reducing spending.

Federal income taxes are marginal at best and should be repealed.  Funding for the federal goverment should come from legitimate taxation on products and from the states.  Once the states have control of the purse stings again maybe the federal goverment will stop thinking it can solve all of the problems with cash.

Iraq is a mess, but at this point we must train a sustainable police and miltary force before removing ourselves.

All of my investigations into tort reform point not to capping awards, but giving judges more lattitude to ferret out gold diggers and throwing them out on their ass leaving them to pay for any prep work the other side has had to engage in.

Abortion is a complex and tricky issues that we all must personally come to grips with.  My personal belief is progmatic... sometimes it's the least bad option.  I didn't realise that Pro-Life was manditory for conservatives, I'll have to go back and check my playbook on that one.

I understand deficit spending, but not what is happeneing right now.  Bush has personally signed off on too many costly entitlments and costly federal laws.  How any financial conservative sit by and not be disgusted at the sheer magnitude of the spending... it makes me sick.

It's absolutely a given that embryos will die in greater numbers if public funding for embryonic stem cell research happens. It is not a given that embryonic stem cell research will save even one human life, ever. Any honest scientist will tell you that even very promising lines of research end up being complete wastes of time sometimes. You might call them dry holes.

I can guarantee you that for any disease, if you can use the patient's own stem cells to cure it versus somebody else's stem cells, the doctor will pick the patient's cells every time. That's not morality but mere scientific practicality. Whenever you stick somebody else's parts inside your body, you run a risk. Sometimes the risk is worth running but it's never taken when there are better alternatives.

Embryonic stem cell cures are not the ideal. By their very nature they never will be. It's neither anti-scientific, nor barbaric to limit public funding towards research that is the ideal, rather than a 2nd place alternative.

I'm not kidding anybody that religious limits also have a role in the public debate over embryonic stem cell research. They're not the only consideration and you can be an atheist, rational scientist and against embryonic stem cell quite easily.

Taxation:

 I don't care if it's federal taxation or state taxation. It's all got to go. Surely getting rid of federal tax is a starter.

Iraq:

  I don't know what "mess" you are referring to. We have liberated 30 million and the terrorists are coming there from other countries oinstead of heading to the US. A great success.

  You sound like Kerry here, but your solution is right on what is actually being done.

Tort-reform:

  Your solution is the same as John Edwards wants. I don't think it's a good solution to set a trial lawyer to reduce the amount of lawsuits. the problem here is that as long as the trial-mafia will keep feeding the liberals money, they wil keep on fillibustering any decent reforms.

Likewise, more physicians (including myself) will leave states in a legal hell, retire or simply stop practicing high-risk medicine.

Just two examples here: Use of C-SECTIONS have skyrocketed due to trial-alwyers suing left&right over cerebral palsy. And despite this, the number of Cerebral Palsy cases have not dropped.

 Women in many cities often have to wait for weeks in order to have a mammogramm, since more and more radiologists are hesitant to read them in fear of getting sued.

I think the absolutely most ironic thing here is that Edwards' wife herself has been diagnosed with invasive Ductal Carcinoma and she said herself she didn't have a mammogram in 4 years.

Another thing here (in accord with the original topic) is that her fertility treatment at an advanced maternal age, combined with obesiy probably put her at heightened risk of Breast Cancer to begin with. So first you have someone that has become rich by robbing obstetricians of their living, then the same person seeks to be treated by physicians for fertility treatment and THEN later on is in need of a physician for cancer treatment. I just hope they haven't sued their primary physician for not telling her repeteitively she should have had a mammogram earlier ?!

(While it should be obvious that I don't endorse neither her or her husbands long-standing extortion of physicians before this, I sincerely hope and wish the best for her recovery and would never wish this to happen to anyone).

  With corporate lawsuits, more and more companies are leaving states with lawsuit-hell conditions and movin to more friendly states.

As long as the liberals keep staying in bed with trial-lawyers this will keep on.

Pro-Life:

As I said, there ARE conservatives that are pro-choice. I just wanted to see your response, despite knowing the answer before you gave it. (not very surprising).

 And finally, all these money spent you are talking about. Sure, I don't like it either, but don't come here and tell me that John Kerry would have been more fiscally responsible.

 On a final note here, lawsuits cost this country a quarter of a trillion a year!!! So if you are interested in cutting spendings and expenses, then I suggest you start by enacting a reform most americans are for instead of following John 'blamegame" Edwards' reccomendations.

 CAvH

When we had an infant mortality rate 10x what we have now, we had the same attitude about losing them as we do about losing embryos. It was just one of those things. Now that they aren't dropping like flies, we care more.

I do wonder how you'd do in debate against Peter Singer, noted bioethicist and infanticide advocate (up to 6 months post partum). The standards you seem to be advocating would be like catnip for him.

I'm just hesitant to cap punative damages across the board, that's all.  Maybe a system to streamline cases that only ask for "actual damages" and have a guild/association/fund that asses punative damages/fines for breaches of law or ethics.  I like lawyers as much as the next guy ( not really at all ), but they serve a very real need in this world.

Class action lawsuits definatly need some more regulation to prevent years of litigation and hundreds of millions in legal fees so that I can get check for 30 cents because some disclaimer on some product that I bought a decade ago could be misinterpreted by the morbidly stupid.  I didn't ask to be represented, I didn't know I was represented and I really don't want laywers making a living off my good name for several years on these items.

In reality I know there is a problem, but as of yet have not seen a solution that I like.  One that does not punish the responsible for the misdeeds of the few.

As much as kerry would not have limited spending, he also would not be looking to make the bush tax cuts permenent and thereby restoring at least some finacial sanity to a very screwed up budget.

Reagan did not present a budget that really reflected his desired spending levels. He was smart enough not to take a political hit by presenting a budget that cut somebody's favorite program. Smart Politics.

 So I take two things from this:

  1) You are on the side of Kerry with regards to the lawsuit hell. (Just like the trial lawyers). You KNOW as much as me (based upon the impression I have so far) that the trial-lawyers, the union-bullies and the harvard elite is the current base of the DNC. I leave you to figure the rest.

  2) You prefer to reinstate taxes rather than slash expenses. Making the tax cuts permanent AND cutting expenses is the fiscal conservative approach, NOT pushing taxes back to normal.

 btw, it seems like these tax cuts have done their job. Economy is booming and revenue is up.

CAvH

 Which party are you new to?

CAvH

 Going to Africa to "heal sick" is nothing but a PR stunt for him. He's got enough money and there's enough sick kids in the US that would need his services if he really DID care.

 This is nothing but a big PR stunt. Taking his last flipflop into accord, just confirms his transparency. He's got as much to do as leader of the Rep Senate as Michael Moore.

  IMO surely a traitor. I understand others might see different, but that's MY opinion.

CAvH

 Your so-called "humane treatment" of terrorist suspects would turn the menaest terrorist into a big media circus. Anyone is a suspect until proven guilty, so that would let every loonie on David Lettermann or Leono's propaganda shows.

With regards to SSaddam, I surely believe it would have been better for mankind to have Mossad execute him with a bullet just like Fleischer said. Your well-meaning political correctness here is so standard and without originality that even Howard dean might have constructed something more genuine. Whether we have "juristiction" or not doesn't matter. WHO CARES??? The only ones benfiting for us waiting for "juristiction" is all his buddies in the UN, some high-profile lawyers and ppl that hate America.

When it comes to asset forfeiture, I think you will be hard-pressed to produce tons of cases where random suspects have been stripped to the bone of their house, property or money. Surely, this might happen if someone was hanging out with a bunch of coke-smugglers and didn't take any active part of it, but if anyone is that blind, I am sure they would be aquitted on reason of naivity.

We cannot prohibit ANY action just because some innocents might get hurt on rare occations. then nothing would get done.

  Likewise, should we carry your concerns to the ultimate conclusion, we might just as well start banning all cars, cigarettes, food additives and beaches since some "innocent" ppl will die .

CAvH

 I don't think we can get anywhere here.

 You are a pro-tax, pro-abortion, pro-terorism, pro-junkie and certainly a zealous pro-"civl-liberties".

  Since you state you are a conservative, I am not going to disagre wiht your own labelling, but i just think you should reconsider your party affilliation, since it seems like your base philosophy is more in tune with Howard Dean, MoveOn or Pelosi.

   Good luck whatever you choose ;)

CAvH

 I don't think we can get anywhere here.

 You are a pro-tax, pro-abortion, pro-terorism, pro-junkie and certainly a zealous pro-"civl-liberties".

  Since you state you are a conservative, I am not going to disagre wiht your own labelling, but i just think you should reconsider your party affilliation, since it seems like your base philosophy is more in tune with Howard Dean, MoveOn or Pelosi.

   Good luck whatever you choose ;)

CAvH

You think a Fetal Rights to Life Law will also solve Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

Your argument is better reasoned here, and less inflamatory than the post to which I originally replied.  I, like others, appear to disagree with you to some respect regarding the process.  And, for the purposes that this blog was set up, we do not need to pyscho-analyze each other any further...

As for Kazynsky, Mengele, etc. - see Godwin's Law... It's your perception of the IVF reality, not everyone's.

As for truth hurting, that's a reflexive statement as well.

Thank you for the good wishes, we have lots of hope, too.

Having seen both pharmaceutical companies and academia at fairly close range, I am not particularly eager to see academics try to make all our drugs for us; nor to see our basic research entirely supported by pharmaceutical companies increasingly fixated on finding the ONE! BIG! THING! that will keep the whole leviathan airborne for another few years. Frankly, I'm a little puzzled by opposition in principle to government funding of R&D; I'm sure you can point to individually egregious instances, but government-funded R&D, as I see it, is quite competitive in terms of which projects it selects, and does a fair amount of good for the country. (Scientific excellence seems to be self-reinforcing: because we do tremendous amounts of R&D in this country, it tends to attract researchers from abroad, which increases our productivity, etc...) Taking an axe to that because you believe the market can handle everything strikes me as a libertarian position; hardly a conservative one.

Sharon Stone could help me carry Schiavo.

Change it around and you can see it more clearly.

I can only save one person and you, an old man, are in there with my kid.  Who do you think I am going to save?

Does that mean your life has no value?  Or less value than may kid's?  

People are unbelievably uninformed regarding adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells, therapeutic cloning, etc.

Right now, most of the electorate believes (thanks to the MSM) that Bush has prohibited all experiments on all stem cells.  The line goes something like this, "Bush, who opposes stem cell research, has promised to veto any legislation that loosens restrictions he placed on these scientific methods back in 2003.  Coming up next, we have the illustrious scientist, Dr. Yes, who will discuss some of the illnesses they hope to cure with stem cell research, including parkinsons, diabetes, alzheimers, and cancer."

Ok, let's pretend that I really did choose 10 infants and left the one teenager in there to die.  Your point is?

Does the teenager's life therefore have no value?  Are we now allowed to begin experimentation on any stragglers?  If the teenager's mom was the one making the choice and chose her and not the ten infants, can we now begin experiments on infants?

I can't figure out your conclusion from your hypothetical.

Your website (www.stemcellresearch.org) is run by a little outfit called the Trinity International University (www.trin.edu).  This can be checked by looking at the registration information for stemcellresearch.org and noticing the contact info is the address and phone number for trin.edu.  

It clearly has an agenda not related to actual research or bioethics.  How is anyone supposed to take this seriously?  Please choose your sources more carefully.

what you mean by "cloned to the patient"? If we're just talking about using the recipient's own DNA, not some embryos created in a fertility clinic, then I don't think there's a moral issue here.

For responding without immediatly bashing me.. what I'm trying to come to grips with is that morally I would always choose ( barring emotional entanglements ) to save as many as possible, but I CAN NOT see saving 10, 100, even 10,000 frozen embryo's over the life of even 1 living and breathing child ( or teeneger or adult ).  Morally and compasionatly it just does not make any sense.  I do place less value in the embryo as a person because until they are nurished by the womb they are mearly the possibility of a person.  Until they have the capability for higher though, love, emotions, and or memories it just does not seem right to give them equal standing as every other person who has been born into this world.

I just want someone to explain to me why those 10,000 frozen embryo's are more important than 1 living breathing individual.

..he "preferred" lower spending, but not strongly enough to actually propose it himself? That's only "smart politics" if you don't actually care about your preferrance....ie. if you don't really prefer it.  As the record shows - by & large he he got what he cared enough to ask for.  Including the record deficits and debt that he, in fact, preferred when the rubber met the road.

Your response was so off the wall it sounded like it had been written by a Clinton apologist.

Perhaps you read more into my comment than I wrote into it.  I was just responding to your post, and nothing else.  Yet at the same time, you ignored my question.  You had stated your opinion, and I was interested in why you saw a preference for incinerating the cells rather than using them for experimentation.

So it's only fair that I answer YOUR question.  Of course I don't condone experimenting on the disabled.  Where did you see anything like that in my note?

As for Death Row---you'll have to look further down the thread for my "explanation."

intended or made in my post #141.  That just sprang into somebody's mind, but I didn't put it there.  I certainly wouldn't equate her situation with being on Death Row.  (Yes, you can draw some parallels between the two situations, but don't bother.  That wasn't what I had in mind.)

Perhaps it would have been more clear if I had expressed myself as follows:

"Bring on the scientists." :-)

I ususlly assume I'm corresponding with reasonably astute people, and I don't usually think in terms of adding emoticons to show that the preceding statement is supposed to be "funny," unless the note I'm answering has already used one and therefore jarred my memory.  Either you get it, or you don't.  That particular line was a bit of black humor, but brendanm98 caught it, and in fact got it exactly right.

Some place out here, I also suggested that when it comes to counting folks for the purpose of apportioning House seats that, "Heck, I say don't count Democrats, either. ;-)"  That was also in response to Just Me, but that time I remembered the smiley-face thing.

I've been away for a while.  Like you, I have observed that Just Me is almost always well-spoken and thoughtful.  I think this was just a misunderstanding.  Maybe I SHOULD use more emoticons.  :-)

anybody was being "anti-Republican."  I can't even guess how one can accuse a Republican of being "anti-Republican."  Accusing me of accusing somebody else of being "anti-Republican," when I haven't done that, is a lot like Democrats saying that we accuse them of being "unpatriotic," when we don't do that, either.  

But I certainly have noticed that this thread is a departure from the usual reasoned arguments that I find on the site.  This one is generating more heat than light.

You say you place LESS value on an embryo.  If you allow them to be used for medical experimentation, they have NO value, other than what you can get out of it by destroying them.  Like firewood.

You say it does not seem right to give them equal standing as every other person.  No, it does not.  That is why no one is arguing that they have the right to privacy, the right to free speach or religion.  All we are saying is that they should not be used for medical experimentation.  To deny them that is to even deny them any kind of a humanity at all.  They become a clump of cells with no value, like a biology slide of a plant, or a pickled liver.  

Surely you can see that when we are talking about a culture of life, we are not talking about absolute rights for all forms, but just a simple respect for life, even in its most basic forms.

from a likely controversial source were made to match those of the patient.

Link

To respect it for what it is would be to also acknowlegde that it's a clump of undifferntiated cells that can help scientists better understand medical science and curing diease and damage.  A chimp is more human that what you are talking about.

You are correct that the embryo's have effectivly no value, unless that embryo is implanted it is perishable and would soon have no value and have produced nothing and the "life" would have been wasted.  At least by using it for scientific use it has created some value for huamans as a whole.

At first you seemed more reasonable.  Now you have posted that it is "...a clump of undifferentiated cells...." and that "A chimp is more human..."  No.  A chimp is not human at all.  Those cells are entirely human.  For that matter, they are the entirety of a human.  

Secondly, read my post again.  Nowhere did I say that the embryos have effectively no value.  Not even close.  I said that the very least you could do to acknowledge their value was to agree not to use them as biology slides.

When the parents made them, and believed that they were their only chance to be parents, I can assure you that they were HIGHLY valued (to the tune of thousands of dollars in denominated currency and blood, sweat and tears in human currency).  

It is outside my comprehension that their only human value was in the prospective chance of some couple getting to be parents.  Now that they can't turn someone into parents, we should somehow use them as human guinea pigs so we can still get something out of them?  How self centered can we get?