[Kozmik]

He'll allow federal funds for stem cell research on existing stem cell lines. Excellent!

[Scrod]

Wow! I honestly wasn't expecting him to do that! I'm quite pleased.

[nealconner]

Good. I don't agree with destroying embryos, but its good at least he funded research on the stem lines that already exist.

[alphamatrix]

Hooray!!!!

[Korv]

"As your president I feel I have a responsibility to foster and encourage a respect for life at home and abroad." How fvcking ironic, he is fostering a respect for life. I guess electric chairs are very respectful... or something.

"As American we recoil at the idea of..." Dammit stop talking for me already!

Was he assuming everyone knows what issue he was talking about, because he totaly glossed over anything having to do with what he was actually talking about. Did he have to mention prayer and religion in every sentence? And WTF was up with that wild kingdom going on behind him? And why was he in Texas and not Washington? And why did he do this anyway? Couldn't he just have a press release? Did he have to prove he was really working while he's on vacation? The man can hardly talk. You'd think someone as awkward and stupid as this would want to avoid public speaking as much as possible, perhaps just doing the required State of the Union speeches. The overall impression I was left with was "what a moron."

Edit: UBB code

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Korv ]

[davesimondotcom]

As far as it goes, this decision is either the worst political decision of Bush's career or his best. The jury is out.

He seemed to come out with a decision that leaves both sides with something. But he also leaves both sides saying he didn't go far enough. But he was in a catch 22.

If he decided to have full funding for any stem cell research, he would be derided by the left as not sticking to his principles (remember how Clinton played up "read my lips"?) and by the right for killing babies.

If he decided there was to be no funding, he would have been derided by the left for being a patsy for the right and blamed for everything from Reagan's memory to Christopher Reeve's legs.

All in all, I think he was pretty fair. I don't know what I would have done in his shoes.

Korv says:

Was he assuming everyone knows what issue he was talking about, because he totaly glossed over anything having to do with what he was actually talking about. Did he have to mention prayer and religion in every sentence? And WTF was up with that wild kingdom going on behind him? And why was he in Texas and not Washington? And why did he do this anyway? Couldn't he just have a press release? Did he have to prove he was really working while he's on vacation? The man can hardly talk. You'd think someone as awkward and stupid as this would want to avoid public speaking as much as possible, perhaps just doing the required State of the Union speeches. The overall impression I was left with was "what a moron."

First off, I don't think he glossed over anything. But I don't think any of us wanted to listen to him for 3 hours on every detail of Stem Cell Research.

2. I didn't notice prayers in every sentence. And I'm not religious and I usually roll my eyes at it.

3. I did want him to slap a fly and say something witty. But it wasn't the wild kingdom, it's his land.

4. Texas is his home. Washington is just a place for politics.

5. He did it because people have been wanting a decision for months.

6. If he had just golfed the whole time you'd be saying "why doesn't he do some work?" Again, no win situation with someone like you who would hate him no matter what he does.

7. Just because he stumbles while reading doesn't make him stupid. Oh, are you planning on uploading PDFs of your diplomas from Yale and Harvard B-School?

I guess we could always go back to having a really smart Oxford man in the White House. Someone with brains but run by his balls...

[Korv]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
<STRONG>
First off, I don't think he glossed over anything. But I don't think any of us wanted to listen to him for 3 hours on every detail of Stem Cell Research.</STRONG>

OK. I can deal. Aliilte in and out deal. All right.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
<STRONG>
2. I didn't notice prayers in every sentence. And I'm not religious and I usually roll my eyes at it.[</STRONG>

I'm hyper sensitive. He mentioned prayers and religios leadership like four times or so, and it bugs me.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
<STRONG>
3. I did want him to slap a fly and say something witty. But it wasn't the wild kingdom, it's his land.</STRONG>

Ya, that would have been fine. That was so distracting.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
<STRONG>
4. Texas is his home. Washington is just a place for politics.</STRONG>

Wasn't this politics? So wouldn't the proper place be Washington? I find the intimation that our seat of government has moved to Texas a bit disturbing.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
<STRONG>
5. He did it because people have been wanting a decision for months.</STRONG>

Whatever. There was nothing that made this different from any of the other "issues" he has "thought about", "decided on", and made statements about.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
<STRONG>
6. If he had just golfed the whole time you'd be saying "why doesn't he do some work?" Again, no win situation with someone like you who would hate him no matter what he does.</STRONG>

You misunderstand, I am saying "why doesn't he do some work?" I heard he spent 43% of his first 8 months in office on vacation. Is that true? If it is, come on! Yes, I would hate him no matter what he'd do at this point, but it seems like he's over his head and can't get away enough.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
<STRONG>
7. Just because he stumbles while reading doesn't make him stupid. Oh, are you planning on uploading PDFs of your diplomas from Yale and Harvard B-School?</STRONG>

I've said it before and I'll say it again. My resume may not be as impressive as his, but at least I'm responsible for what's on it, not my dad and his connections.

Edit: Here is what happened the last time this came up.

[ 08-10-2001: Message edited by: Korv ]

[The Dude]

Good, now I won't wish that Bush will slip and fall and break his neck.

Good choice Dubya!

[seanyepez]

I bet it was a hard decision for him. Unfortunately, this and a few other situations will probably deny him another real chance at the presidency next year, since a lot of people will hate him/love him for some of the things he's done for America.

[Eugene]

Next year? He's got 3+ years to impress.

This was actually kind of disappointing. He should have catered to the liberals and gone all out. I'm not liberal, but I'm also not religious.

These embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, ethics or no ethics...religion or no religion...they might as well use what they can for science.

[DoctorGonzo]

This was actually kind of disappointing. He should have catered to the liberals and gone all out.

That was my thought, as well.....

He obviously took that option into serious consideration, it would of had the benefit of winning over liberals, advancing science and helping to dispel feelings that he is a complete idiot.

If he pissed off the conservatives...what would they do? Vote for the pro-choice Democrats in the next election? They are stuck with the GOP. No conservative 3rd party presents a challenge to the releection aspirations of the current administration. A conservative 3rd party is not going to get anywhere near enough votes to present a problem ala Ralph Nader. The ultra right wingers have nowhere else to go. If they are pissed off, they are pissed off. The money and support will still come in. The releection coffers will still be overflowing with tens of millions of dollars. They will still get the same percentage of the vote.

It seems Bush is always talking about how "more study needs to be done" when it comes to preventing big business from raping the enviornment. He is always waiting for "all the facts", like someday someone will drop a book on his desk detailing every aspect of every issue. He is always willing to put off something that will cost his campaign contributors money until he has "all the facts". Yet, with something that has the potential to greatly benefit mankind, he declines to persue his usual course of action.

I like how he claimed because fetal tissue research didn't live up to the (hype) highest hopes of some in the scientific community, it gives him reason to be cautious about stem cells. That's like saying the failure to produce suitcase sized, self-contained fusion reactors is good enough reason to never try and build a 400 story building. Guess what, the nature of science dictates that somethings will work out and others will not.



I found his coments on his fears "of a society that does not respect the value of human life" to be the height of iorny.

[ 08-10-2001: Message edited by: DoctorGonzo ]

[Millennium]

I figured he would do this, but I still consider this to be a dark day. We've gone from murder to enslavement, based on the flimsy opinion that "they were going to be destroyed anyway."

Someday humanity will look back on this and realize it for the horror that it is. Sadly, billions will apparently have to suffer before that occurs. Damn the lobbyists, anyway.

[simonjames]

From a non-American's view point this is the best thing he has ever done and quite unexpected.

Stem cell research will hopefully be the biggest breakthrough in 'medicine' ever. Just think - broken spinal cords repaired - alzheimers stopped in its tracks before it destroys - sick organs regenerating into healthy ones.

IMHO this is much more important than cloning - cloning (may) only supplies body parts to replace those damaged - stem cells (may) have the ability to help the body repair itself.

[theiliad]

Bush makes a good decision?????? WIERD

[daimoni]

Originally posted by seanyepez:
<STRONG>I bet it was a hard decision for him.</STRONG>

Heh. Heh. Heh... I don't think he makes the decisions (nor writes the speeches)... his shadow cabinet does.

He's the guy who gets paid to play video games and take month long vacations like the rest of us Americans.

But I'm happy they made the decision.

This sort of research was going to continue with or without America. I think they realized a market opportunity was about to be lost. At least some children in desperate need may benefit from it.

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
<STRONG>
If he pissed off the conservatives...what would they do? Vote for the pro-choice Democrats in the next election? They are stuck with the GOP. No conservative 3rd party presents a challenge to the releection aspirations of the current administration. A conservative 3rd party is not going to get anywhere near enough votes to present a problem ala Ralph Nader. The ultra right wingers have nowhere else to go. If they are pissed off, they are pissed off. The money and support will still come in. The releection coffers will still be overflowing with tens of millions of dollars. They will still get the same percentage of the vote.</STRONG>

Neither you nor I know what the political landscape will look like 3 years from now. I think Bush will prove himself to be sufficiently conservative to preempt a challenge from the right but religious conservatives are probably the easiest to piss off enough to mount a 3rd party challenge. Or they might also choose to sit on their hands.

<STRONG>It seems Bush is always talking about how "more study needs to be done" when it comes to preventing big business from raping the enviornment. He is always waiting for "all the facts", like someday someone will drop a book on his desk detailing every aspect of every issue. He is always willing to put off something that will cost his campaign contributors money until he has "all the facts". Yet, with something that has the potential to greatly benefit mankind, he declines to persue his usual course of action.</STRONG>

Guess what, there's big money to be made in ESCR too.

<STRONG>I found his coments on his fears "of a society that does not respect the value of human life" to be the height of iorny.</STRONG>

Yeah, 1.5 million abortions a year... I wonder what he could have been thinking? That dumb Dubya!

[davesimondotcom]

I think what makes this a really tough debate is that the POTENTIAL of stem cell research is so great. But people are talking about it as a definate cure for all sorts of things...

If Bush had not funding any research, he would have been accused of inhibiting the cures for everything.

However, will anyone care about this in 10 years if no results come from the research?

[gwrjr33]

This morning, a symposium over at NRO:

Did Bush Do the Right Thing?
Arthur Caplan and others weigh in on the president's decision.

Compiled by Kathryn Jean Lopez, NRO executive editor
August 10, 2001 9:20 a.m.

David Prentice, professor of life sciences, Indiana State University & adviser to Sen. Sam Brownback (R., Kan.)

President Bush's compromise decision on human-embryonic-stem-cell research was both heartening and disappointing. Heartening because he made it clear that no taxpayer dollars would go toward the killing of any more human embryos. Disappointing because he opted for a political compromise in an attempt to satisfy everyone. Federal dollars will now be used to reward the recent destruction of human life for what is certainly tainted and scientifically questionable research. Human life was still purposely destroyed to derive the existing human-embryonic stem cells. And how will these cells be certified as existing before the president's announcement, versus produced by further destruction of human embryos? What happens when and if researchers provide one actually successful result and proclaim the need for many more cell lines? After 20 years of experiments with mouse embryonic stem-cell lines, little evidence exists that embryonic stem cells will ever make good on any of the promises being made to patients. Meanwhile, adult-stem-cell research continues to show the path to real benefits for patients, and without harm to any human being.

Michael Schwartz, vice president for government relations, Concerned Women for America

One of two things is bound to happen. Either the research on the embryonic stem-cell lines the president has authorized will produce some therapeutic advance, or it will not. In the first instance, the pressure to broaden the funding will be irresistible, because it works. In the latter case, blame for the lack of progress will fall on the president for his timid failure to commit enough resources to scientific progress, and the resentment against him will grow along with the frustration over the lack of results. Having discarded any principled basis for resisting the broadening of research funding, he will have no option but to permit more and more. Once you start sliding down a slippery slope, there is no stopping until you hit bottom.

The president was confronted with a stark choice between good and evil. He was afraid to go either way, and tried to find a middle ground that would please pretty near everyone. So he chose a little bit of evil, and now he has the wolf by the ears.

Lewis Charles Murtaugh, research fellow, Dept. of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University

Right off the bat, full disclosure: While I don't work with human ES cells, I have a number of friends and colleagues who do. On their behalf, and because I believe that ES cell research is the most promising route to many cures, I let out a sigh of relief at the news of President Bush's compromise. And yet...I would be much happier with this development if the only politicians on my side were cut from the mold of Bill Frist and Orrin Hatch. ESCR opponents will object that the ends do not justify the means, but at least Frist and Hatch have the right ends in view, i.e. alleviating disease and suffering. Their opponents in the pro-life movement are similarly sincere in their views. In contrast, I suspect that many on the Left know and care little about the science, but see ESCR itself as a means to a more questionable end, the shoring-up of abortion rights from blastocyst to birth. Bush cannot possibly hope to sway these voters, ESCR or no; the question is whether as many moderates will be won over as conservatives are alienated. In the meantime, well-meaning scientists are in the hot seat, as the culture wars finally invade the research laboratory.

Michael Ledeen, fellow, American Enterprise Institute & NRO contributing editor

I thought it was a hell of a good speech. It fit the problem very well, he demonstrated a gravitas that we haven't seen enough of, and he was obviously in full command of the subject. I was pleased with the final phrase, when he said he hoped he'd made the right decision.

There may not be a right decision, and there may not even be a decision that matters. While it is not true, as so many believe, that scientific genies can't be put back in political bottles, there are some that clearly escape capture, and my guess is that this is one of them. There will be lots of clandestine labs, and some very public ones-like Professor Antinori's - that will clone, that will use any stem cells they can get (and the Chinese will provide any body part for a price), and will keep pushing the envelope. The desire for immortality will, I have little doubt, eventually overwhelm the defenses of the virtuous, even such a pillar of virtue as Leon Kass, surely the best choice to head the new oversight body.

But we can hope that W's fine speech will do some good, by elevating the debate, by showing the public that politicians can grapple with truly profound problems with modesty and dignity, and that this president is trying very hard to advance our interests, moral as well as material. Did someone say "solomonic"?

Chris Currie, who has been insulin-dependent with type I diabetes for 28 years. He lives with his wife and two young children in Hyattsville, Md.

While there are sighs of relief this morning that the president's proposed limiting federal funding to cell lines already established, troubling questions remain. By rewarding the human-experimentation industry with tax dollars for its grisly fruits, the federal government maintains a morally problematic proximity to the acts which killed some of the most vulnerable members of the human species. Moreover, both the principle and the mechanism by which these embryos perished remains intact. The idea that the government can foster good ends from evil means has become policy, while the freedom of researchers to create new cell lines by destroying countless more embryos using private money continues unchecked. What in the new administration policy will prevent future embryonic-stem-cell lines from receiving the same sanction as those "grandfathered" last night? President Bush may have felt he exercised the wisdom of Solomon with his compromise, but the wise king saved the baby. Last night, we were left to contemplate babies already slaughtered, and the president parceling out the remains.

Arthur L. Caplan, director, Center of Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania

When is a compromise not a compromise? When a president declares a compromise but in actuality takes one side of an issue.

President Bush gave an articulate and sincere speech. He proclaimed he had found a compromise on the thorny ethical question of stem-cell research. But, while his rhetoric was beyond reproach, the substance of his supposed compromise is nothing of the sort.

The president declared that he would permit federal funding of existing cell lines created from human embryos. There are, he said, 60 stem lines available worldwide from destroyed human embryos and these could be obtained by scientists seeking to research on stem cells with federal money.

By limiting research to these cell lines Bush in effect banned federal funding for human-embryo-stem-cell research. Most of the 60 cell lines that already exist in the world will not be of much use to would-be researchers in this country. Many of these cells lines are owned by companies who will only make them available if the price is right. Other cell lines are close to losing their potency making them worthless for further research. And still others have been manipulated in ongoing research to the point where there is no practical way to make any use of them in new experiments.

I believe the president when he says he truly wants to meet the needs of the disabled, diseased, and dying. But his '"compromise" will do nothing of the sort. The only real hope for doing serious research on human-embryonic stem cells is to use human embryos to create those stem cells. Existing cell lines simply are not going to do the job that is required.

Why did the president decide against destroying embryos to get stem cells? In his speech he said that all human life is sacred and that it is wrong to experiment on something that is going to be destroyed. Neither view seems ethically sound.

Not all human embryos can be treated as morally equal. Most of the tens of thousands that are frozen in tanks all around this nation are the unfortunate, unwanted remains of attempts to treat infertility. They are not human life, nor are they alive nor are the vast majority of them even potential human lives.

Many were put aside and frozen as malformed. Others are miswired having come from women who eggs had lost their potency. Those that have been frozen for more than five years will never be put into a womb for the purposes of making a baby by any responsible doctor because they have almost no chance of becoming a baby. The president declared these embryos to be equal in moral worth to crippled children and those confined to wheelchairs due to spinal-cord injury, traumatic brain injuries, strokes, and Parkinsonism. They are not.

The president also argued that it would be wrong to experiment on embryos which are going to be destroyed. But he never said why. He simply asserted this as a moral fact. He is wrong again. If you have embryos that are going to be destroyed then if their destruction is an ethical act, which I would maintain it is for those embryos that cannot become babies, then there is no moral harm in accomplishing their destruction by putting them into research.

The president sought a compromise. But he wound up advancing a non-solution. Patients, the disabled, their families and research scientists are not likely to be mollified. The president compromised his compromise because the American people will not be persuaded by the moral position that it rests upon.

Elsewhere on the site this debate has been raging between Patrick Lee and Robert P. George and Ronald Bailey, Reason magazine's science correspondent.

Embryology, Philosophy, & Human Dignity
Ronald Bailey is still wrong.

By Patrick Lee & Robert P. George. Mr. Lee is associate professor of philosophy at the Franciscan University of Steubenville. Mr. George is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University.
August 9, 2001 10:35 a.m.

The science of human embryology stubbornly refuses to cooperate with Ronald Bailey.

Bailey continues to insist that embryos are analogous to somatic cells. It is, however, a stubborn fact of science that somatic cells are functionally parts of larger organisms. In this respect, they are analogous, albeit loosely, to gametes. Human embryos, by contrast, are distinct organisms that, unless prevented from doing so, actively develop themselves to more mature stages of the human organisms they already are with their distinctness and identity intact. That is why it is true to say that while you and I were never sperm cells or ova (just as someone who came into being by cloning was never a somatic cell), you and I truly were once embryos, just as we were once adolescents, children, infants, and fetuses.

When Bailey conceded in his original response to our criticisms that all of us were indeed once embryos, his claim to be able to show on the basis of science that human embryos are not human beings collapsed. So he quietly shifted the argument from science to philosophy. "When we were embryos," according to Bailey, "we were not yet people." Why not? Because, he claimed, only a being with mental functions, or the immediately exercisable capacity for such functions, has moral value (i.e., is a "person").

In response, we argued that human beings have intrinsic, and not merely instrumental, value. Each of us has worth because of what we are, not because of the properties or states that we happen to instantiate. (This is the basis of the principle of equal rights; no one has greater or less worth and dignity by virtue of differences in intelligence, strength, health, etc.) It follows that human beings have worth, dignity, and basic rights from the point at which they come to be. People do not acquire worth, dignity, and basic rights only after coming to be; nor can they lose these features prior to ceasing to be, by dying. All living human beings, irrespective of age, size, physical or mental ability, condition of dependency, or stage of development are owed respect; none may legitimately be enslaved or in any other way relegated to the status of a mere means to others' ends.

In his new reply, Bailey reiterates his claim that human embryos lack moral worth because they have not yet developed brains and the immediately exercisable capacity for mental functions. But he again fails to provide the slightest support for this position. In fact, he now makes matters worse by asserting that "if our brain activity ceases - our thoughts, memories, emotions, and intentions cease - we have ceased to be." If, as he had earlier agreed, human beings are essentially physical organisms, rather than (as philosophical dualists wrongly suppose) spirits or centers of consciousness inhabiting bodies, or, alternatively, mere series of experiences, then this claim is plainly false. In any event, Bailey's asserting it commits him to the very dualism he had previously - and rightly - rejected.

Bailey mischaracterizes and fails to come to terms with our refutation of his claim that possession of a functioning brain is a requirement of "personhood.". We did not argue merely that the brain-dead human being is dead while an embryo is alive. Our point was that brain death is accepted as the criterion of death not because the brain is needed for mental functions, but because without a brain at that stage of life then the organism ceases to be. After death, the cells in the corpse remain alive, but (if one assumes that brain death is a valid criterion) then there is not a unitary organism.

Moreover, as we and many others (including some who hold a position like Bailey's) have observed, there is no logically consistent way for someone holding Bailey's position to condemn the killing of infants or comatose humans, since these people also lack mental functioning. Bailey now replies that one can condemn killing the comatose, the asleep, and infants, because, "all have more or less functioning brains..." But the phrase, "more or less functioning," slurs over a crucial distinction. Infants and the permanently comatose do not have brains capable of sustaining mental acts. The function their brains perform is precisely to organize the various tissues and organs so that there is a unitary, self-integrating human organism - a function performed by other bodily parts in human beings at the embryonic stage. So, if one's reason for denying moral worth to human embryos is that they lack mental functioning, or the immediately exercisable capacity for mental functions, then it follows (as Peter Singer has the candor to acknowledge) that infants and people in permanent comas lack moral worth. But infants and the comatose clearly are beings of moral worth, and so Bailey's position is mistaken.

Returning now from philosophy to biology, Bailey takes one more stab at proving that human embryos are not human beings. We had asserted, in line with every scientific text on embryology we have been able to discover, that the embryo is a distinct member of the human species. Bailey now says that, "Science [our italics] shows us that it is not so." And how does science do this? "Since [identical twins] develop from the same fertilized egg, their genes are identical. They clearly become 'distinct' sometime after conception."

Bailey's claim that identical twin embryos are not distinct human beings because they lack distinct genomes, if correct, would prove that no identical twins (including, for example, 25-year-olds) are distinct from each other. It also would prove that all clones (of whatever species) are identical to the beings from which they were cloned. We clarified this issue in our second reply to Bailey: One set of evidence shows that the embryo is human; another set that the embryo is distinct from his or her mother and father (normally, though not in the case of clones, having a distinct genetic makeup); and still another set of evidence shows that the embryo is a whole organism, as opposed to being functionally a part of a larger organism.

What is true is that identical twins do not become distinct until the conception of the second one (so Bailey's claim that distinctness comes "after conception" is ambiguous - it is not clear which twin's conception he refers to). In every successful human conception, a distinct, living human individual comes to be with the fertilization of the oocyte by the spermatozoan. In the case of monozygotic twinning, another distinct, living human individual is generated from the cells of an already extant embryonic human being, through extrinsic division. (In recombination - what Bailey refers to as "chimeras" - one twin dies and his cells become part of the other twin.)

Twinning and cloning simply show that what is needed for the generation of a new individual is just this: a) the complete genetic code, either in the two sex cells in normal conception, or in the original cell from which a new offspring emerges (in twinning and cloning); b) factors derived from the maternal cytoplasm in the ovum (or oocyte in normal conception) that activate active development or growth; and c) a suitable environment. When these three factors combine, and not until then, a new and distinct organism is produced, its distinctness evidenced above all by the distinct direction of its growth, toward the mature stage of a distinct organism...

[ 08-10-2001: Message edited by: gwrjr33 ]

[San Acoustic]

I'm considering posting War and Peace here.

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by San Acoustic:
<STRONG>I'm considering posting War and Peace here.</STRONG>

I know. What can I say? It's a big subject with lots of POVs. Click on those links, you'll get even more.

[Timo]

The other side of the argument should be posted, too.

T

[Korv]

Originally posted by gwrjr33:
<STRONG>
Yeah, 1.5 million abortions a year... I wonder what he could have been thinking? That dumb Dubya!</STRONG>

I think Doctor Gonzo and I were refering to Dubya simultaneously preaching respect for life and being one of the biggest proponents of the death penalty on the planet. If that's not ironic, I guess you could just call it dumb.

[Kozmik]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>I figured he would do this, but I still consider this to be a dark day. We've gone from murder to enslavement, based on the flimsy opinion that "they were going to be destroyed anyway."

Someday humanity will look back on this and realize it for the horror that it is. Sadly, billions will apparently have to suffer before that occurs. Damn the lobbyists, anyway.</STRONG>

That doesn't even make sense.

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by Korv:
<STRONG>
I think Doctor Gonzo and I were refering to Dubya simultaneously preaching respect for life and being one of the biggest proponents of the death penalty on the planet. If that's not ironic, I guess you could just call it dumb.</STRONG>

I know what you meant. Bush's position isn't any dumber or ironic than being anti-death penalty and being pro-abortion. Are there even 100 executions a year? BTW, I'm against the death penalty too but if you are going to make this your concern by far the bigger problem is abortion.

[Scott_H]

Of course the difference being that people who are on death row are there because they killed someone by their own choice. Where as the aborted fetus has no choice in what happens to it.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
<STRONG>Of course the difference being that people who are on death row are there because they killed someone...</STRONG>

Maybe. Maybe not.

[macvillage.net]

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Korv:
<STRONG>

I think Doctor Gonzo and I were refering to Dubya simultaneously preaching respect for life and being one of the biggest proponents of the death penalty on the planet. If that's not ironic, I guess you could just call it dumb.</STRONG>

You make it seem like Bush is some sort of death penalty advocate, constantly pushing others into trying it. Just because he enforced the law in Texas as governor...

Being both pro-choice and pro-death penalty I guess makes me less ironic.

Think of it this way. The Death Penalty is simply a really really late term abortion after we've had a chance to get to know how bad someone is.

[Korv]

Originally posted by gwrjr33:
<STRONG>
I know what you meant. Bush's position isn't any dumber or ironic than being anti-death penalty and being pro-abortion. Are there even 100 executions a year? BTW, I'm against the death penalty too but if you are going to make this your concern by far the bigger problem is abortion.</STRONG>

I find no irony or hypocricy in being pro-choice and anti-death penalty (BTW, I am pro choice, but I'm about 90% againt the death penalty (theres a pragmatic part of my personaltiy that won't go away no matter what my logic says)). Anyway... My contention in being pro-choice is not that killing baby people is OK, but rather that the collection of cells that is aborted, which has the potential to become a person, is in fact not a person at all. Are you going to make the claim that a murderer is not a person? Are you going to make the claim that theirs is not a human life, which Dubya is "fostering respect" for? And, of course, there's the issue of killing innocent people, which happens all the time.

Abortion tangent: I believe that somewhere between conception and birth the "poterntial person" bears enough human traits to becalled (or become) a person. No one can seem to agree on where that line is. The government's stance is that a baby becomes a person at birth. That is, after all, when they can be claimed as a dependent, get a SS#, etc. They are not considered a person by the gov. before birth. I don't know where in preganancy a "potential person" becomes a person, but it seems to me that the first trimester is clearly not a person. Pro-life folks believe that at the moment of conception, as soon as the sperm meets the egg, that is a person, and should be entitled to full rights of an individual. Following this line of thought made me think about the Pythons movie "Meaning of Life" where all the Catholics sing and dance in the street "every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good." But seriously, where do you draw the line, a sperm could be considered a potential person too. Should men be prosecuted for masturbation? /tangent

[BRussell]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
<STRONG>Being both pro-choice and pro-death penalty I guess makes me less ironic.</STRONG>

A pro-death-penalty libertarian? That's a pretty powerful gov't you believe in, when it can kill its citizens. At least with abortion, it's not the gov't doing it, it's a private citizen.

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by Korv:
<STRONG>
I find no irony or hypocricy in being pro-choice and anti-death penalty... My contention in being pro-choice is not that killing baby people is OK, but rather that the collection of cells that is aborted, which has the potential to become a person, is in fact not a person at all. Are you going to make the claim that a murderer is not a person? Are you going to make the claim that theirs is not a human life, which Dubya is "fostering respect" for? And, of course, there's the issue of killing innocent people, which happens all the time.</STRONG>

Collection of cells, yeah, that's it. That should sanitize things sufficiently. As to the personhood of the murderer, what's your point? I already told you I'm against the death penalty. I do challenge you, however, to come up with an instance in the last 30 years when an innocent person was executed. Please don't tell me about cases where death row inmates were released after their innocence was established. Tell me about an actual execution of an innocent person.

<STRONG>Abortion tangent: I believe that somewhere between conception and birth the "poterntial person" bears enough human traits to becalled (or become) a person. No one can seem to agree on where that line is... </STRONG>

You were never a sperm because a sperm doesn't contain the entirety of your genetic code. But you were once an embryo and a fetus. There is a continuum of life that runs from conception till death. That is true for you and me and everyone else reading these words. At conception a human life begins whether you or the government wants to bestow on it the status of personhood or not. This is just an existential fact. Any attempt to draw lines at some mystical point after conception is not about the SCIENCE of the matter but is about political maneuver.

[Eugene]

Yeah, 1.5 million abortions a year... I wonder what he could have been thinking? That dumb Dubya!

Yeh, 1.5 million abortions a year...and most of these will go right into a plastic garbage bag...so much for science. The question is, why waste it?

You were never a sperm because a sperm doesn't contain the entirety of your genetic code. But you were once an embryo and a fetus. There is a continuum of life that runs from conception till death. That is true for you and me and everyone else reading these words. At conception a human life begins whether you or the government wants to bestow on it the status of personhood or not. This is just an existential fact. Any attempt to draw lines at some mystical point after conception is not about the SCIENCE of the matter but is about political maneuver.

You're saying this like it's the ultimate truth. Why can't a human life be part of two different entities, sperm and egg? Why must the human aspect only appear after the zygote has resulted. Why is a zygote more human than a sperm and an egg? What about an embryo with no brain, no heart, no sentience. And don't start going off on the "potential of sentience." Everything has a potential for sentience...You can't quantify that, can you?

I personally believe the line can be drawn in normal conditions when the embryo has at heart-beat and synaptic activity. Unfortunately, my opinions don't matter at this point, since abortions are legal. So instead of marginalizing this embryo's "life" even further, we can actually produce something from it.

[Eugene]

That said, embryonic stem cells appear well before what *I* consider an embryo that can be described as human. Embryonic stem cells appear in the zygote.

[Korv]

Originally posted by gwrjr33:
<STRONG>
Collection of cells, yeah, that's it. That should sanitize things sufficiently. As to the personhood of the murderer, what's your point? I already told you I'm against the death penalty. I do challenge you, however, to come up with an instance in the last 30 years when an innocent person was executed. Please don't tell me about cases where death row inmates were released after their innocence was established. Tell me about an actual execution of an innocent person.
</STRONG>

Ever think ther might be a reason for that?

There is no legal forum to establish innocence after someone is executed. If there is no way to prove someone innocent after they are executed, it is therefore impossible to execute an innocent. Convienient, isn't it?

Link

Originally posted by gwrjr33:
<STRONG>
You were never a sperm because a sperm doesn't contain the entirety of your genetic code. But you were once an embryo and a fetus. There is a continuum of life that runs from conception till death. That is true for you and me and everyone else reading these words. At conception a human life begins whether you or the government wants to bestow on it the status of personhood or not. This is just an existential fact. Any attempt to draw lines at some mystical point after conception is not about the SCIENCE of the matter but is about political maneuver.</STRONG>

Ummmmm, no.

First, there is no "continuum of life" that runs from a fertilized egg to an adult human. All the cells die and are replaced, and there is no biological material in common. So whatever "continuum" you speak of must be a matter of faith that is entirely unsupported and unprovable.

Second, I'm not ignoring "SCIENCE". My point was precisly that even scientists can't agree on when human life starts. I heard researchers that varied from conception to birth. I fall in between. Just as easily as you declare conception the start of human life "SCIENCE", I could declare an opposing view "SCIENCE", and we're at a stalemate begging the question.

[gwrjr33]

[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

Yeh, 1.5 million abortions a year...and most of these will go right into a plastic garbage bag...so much for science. The question is, why waste it?[quote]

Plastic garbage bags, crematoria, stem cells, gold fillings... good point.

[quote]You were never a sperm because a sperm doesn't contain the entirety of your genetic code. But you were once an embryo and a fetus. There is a continuum of life that runs from conception till death. That is true for you and me and everyone else reading these words. At conception a human life begins whether you or the government wants to bestow on it the status of personhood or not. This is just an existential fact. Any attempt to draw lines at some mystical point after conception is not about the SCIENCE of the matter but is about political maneuver.

You're saying this like it's the ultimate truth. Why can't a human life be part of two different entities, sperm and egg?[quote]

Well, if in your very next post you go on to say that an embryo is not what you would describe as human how can you then say this?

That said, embryonic stem cells appear well before what *I* consider an embryo that can be described as human. Embryonic stem cells appear in the zygote.

Eugene plays God. Whether you consider an embryo to be human or not doesn't alter it's nature. What is it then, canine?

Originally posted by Korv:

Ummmmm, no.

First, there is no "continuum of life" that runs from a fertilized egg to an adult human. All the cells die and are replaced, and there is no biological material in common. So whatever "continuum" you speak of must be a matter of faith that is entirely unsupported and unprovable.

You can't be serious. All the cells that were a part of your body when you were five have died and been replaced too. Was your life at some point interrupted since then?

[Eugene]

Eugene plays God. Whether you consider an embryo to be human or not doesn't alter it's nature. What is it then, canine?

Excuse me? You play God every single day. You eat organic material...plant or animal or both. You indirectly use fossil fuels. You kill microbes every day. Don't look at the world on such a narrow scale if you claim to be so vigilant. Have you ever squashed a bug? have you ever used a tissue paper? Did you ask consent of the sheep before you bought a wool sweater?

That canine comment doesn't even make sense, sarcasm included. I don't hold human life any higher than canine life.

If you mean "nature," aren't we all just a collection of chemical compounds? molecules? atoms? quarks? smaller, less disriminate sub-particles?

Show we start talking about quantum?

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by Eugene:
<STRONG>
If you mean "nature," aren't we all just a collection of chemical compounds? molecules? atoms? quarks? smaller, less disriminate sub-particles?
</STRONG>

nature n 1: the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized; "it is the nature of fire to burn"

[Eugene]

So what is the nature of the (atomic) sub-atomic particles that we are made of?

But of course, I recognize your position, whenever I am backed into a corner, I resort to literal dictionary definitions as well.