Whether you think stem cell research is immoral or not, this little trope needs to be dealt with.
President Bush vetoed a bill last night to fund stem cell research. He then made a statement which is, to be blunt, a lie:
If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos.
This is 100% absolutely untrue, and there is no way to interpret the bill to mean this. The bill would provide funding for additional research to use embryos which were going to be discarded anyway.
If the President were really trying to prevent what he thinks of as murder of humans, then he should block any attempts at in-vitro fertilization, which is what creates so many zygotes in the first place. Instead, he goes this route, which satisfies his far-right fundamentalist base without having to deal with actual, y’know, reality, in any way.
His statement is a lie. It is partisan pandering. It is putting ideology before science. It is distorting science.
With evidently no sense of irony, the President also said:
We want to encourage science.
If you can survive reading this statement without your head exploding, then you are either a better person than me, or you haven’t been paying attention. This White House Administration has been the most openly hostile toward science that I can remember. Period.
Media Matters has quite a lot more information on the disinformation on this topic going around.
And I expect the comments to this blog entry will be heated. I understand that. But let me point out that this blog is about science and skepticism, and this topic, while not astronomy, fits that theme perfectly. Science is not a snapshot, it’s a tapestry, and when one thread is attacked the whole pattern can be in danger.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:41 pm
I would argue that the immoral action here was performed by The Glorified Houseplant Who Would Be Caesar.
He has deliberately consigned millions of people to their possibly preventable deaths, and should be held accountable for that.
I’m ending there, because I’m about to rage…
June 21st, 2007 at 12:41 pm
I do not know what exactly is written in the bill, but I’m sure that you are right, Phil! It doesn’t matter what we think about stem cell research (I’m not a friend of it!) but lying does not support any position!
And: If your president really wants to do something against dieing or killing, he should call all the soldiers home!
(oh, and he is such a good christian, isn’t he? wasn’t there something about not to lie?)
June 21st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
He should never get away claiming he is prolife either. He is certainly anti abortion and anti embryo stem cell research, but he shows little hesitancy supporting the dropping of bombs that unequivocally kill indescriminantly. That includes women and children and whatever else is unfortunate enough to be in the blast zone. He clearly has supported the death penalty and that includes those who are mentally impaired.
He and those in his administration are probably responsible for more deaths than any other human being alive today!!!
June 21st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I think at this point it’s rather obvious that this man knows not the meaning of irony. Of course, that’s what fundamentalism breeds: No irony. (Bill Hicks, 1993) I’m not shocked at any of his statements anymore, I stopped because there is no longer the need. He’s like a walking stereotype who is serious but talks only jokes. Oh well. Maybe science will advance when the next president is in…
June 21st, 2007 at 12:46 pm
I’d make a comment, but I have been *so* angry at this person for *so* many years now that I can no longer think or behave rationally when he, or anything concerning him, is the subject of discussion.
Does that mean he’s won?
June 21st, 2007 at 12:49 pm
You’re right, Mike. And it’s nearly impossible to caricature or parody either the man or the fundamentalist movement. No matter how whacked-out you try to portray either one, it’s still an accurate depiction.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:55 pm
If he’s so pro-life,why is he sending more humans to their deaths overseas? Why does he not care about the veterans who are coming home to NO or LITTLE treatment for their wounds?
This man is a walking pack of lies. Period.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:57 pm
This reminds me that a couple of years ago I was watching the NASA channel and an administrator was leading some sort of meeting. They were discussing how China may (I really don’t remember what year this was) start a space program and land on the moon. This guy had the audacity to ask if they could try to get the president behind a new moon project for the US. Had to LOL at that one, I couldn’t figure out if he actually thought that GWB was another JFK or was going for the poll numbers. Either way, science and Bush are not even compatible.
BTW, I occasionally lurk here after finding out about this site during the Pharyngula competition. I like both, I’m kind of the oddity- a chick with a strong biology background who knows how to do math reasonably well so I find the physical sciences (except for organic chemistry!) to be very interesting.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:01 pm
As C. S. Lewis observes, it’s not strictly correct to call a man a liar if he’s too stupid to understand the situation in the first place….
June 21st, 2007 at 1:02 pm
I was to refrain to express any comment since I don’t live in the USA. But being that science is a concern for all human beings, then I must say that I feel really anoyed, angry it’s more like it, about this guy who calls himself president of the still more advanced in terms of science country. But, given that people like this is advancing fundamentalism, and stoping science and human advance in their tracks so succesfuly, even that title may be given to another country… Trinidad y Tobago, Ghana, or other undeveloped country might en up accepting patients from the USA in the foreseable future if this pattern continues as is… :S
June 21st, 2007 at 1:10 pm
A lie is a deliberate attempt to mislead. While I am sure that what the Shrub said is untrue, I am not convinced it is a lie. He may simply not be bright enough to know any better.
That is, in fact, scarier. Unfortunately, it might be closer to the truth.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:17 pm
I’m still divided on the stem cell issue for various reasons. However, I take serious issue with calling his statement a falsehood, mainly because it can only be seen this way if you look at the issue from a specific perspective. Let me illustrate with some similar issues: Is it murder to kill someone that’s dying anyway? Is it theft to steal something that was already stolen? I’d put destroying embryos in the same basket — the President is separating the normal disposal from “tax-payer approved” disposal.
Is that a line that should exist? Well, that’s the entire question, and it depends heavily on personal opinion on the issue. But please don’t assume that everyone has the same perspective. For right or wrong, they don’t.
Interestingly, this makes me think of the abortion issue: conservatives argue that since a fetus has the potential to become a full person, terminating that life is morally wrong (in general). Roll back the clock a few cell-dividing months, and the analogy extends to an embryo.
– Doug
p.s. Random thought: how many embryos would be destroyed for this reasearch, and how many lives could be saved? Brings up some intersting arguments for both sides…
June 21st, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Instead, he goes this route, which satisfies his far-right fundamentalist base without having to deal with actual, y’know, reality, in any way.
Come on, Phil. This is Bush we’re talking about. The man always opts to deal with his fantasies instead of reality.
Weapons of mass destruction, indeed.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Oh, I forgot something! Very important…..
A politician NEVER lies, he sometimes just don’t say the whole truth!
June 21st, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Having grown up in Europe, I have always been worried by the actions of your presidents, especially during the Cold War. We were directly in the firing line between the US en SU. I remember very clearly how I feared the real possibility to be blitzed out of existence by a American or Soviet nuclear bomb. They would not hesitate to use them, as both never failed to point out (and as the US already had showed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Then I remember very clearly Reagan calling the USSR the Evil Empire. Well, at least Brezhnev didn’t take advise from an astrologer… As far as we were concerned it was the Evil empire against the Crazy Empire.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:44 pm
@ Doug
Yes it is. Just ask Jack Kevorkian.
I’d answer your theft question as a yes too, but my experiences are limited to my part of Michigan.
As for Phil’s comment about heads exploding and “We want to encourage science.” Remember, he does want to promote science, as long as he can dictate what science is, and it forwards his aggressive agenda to build an empire.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:45 pm
For all of your poltico problems - check this out.
The democrats are no better then the republicans. Both support huge bloated governments telling us citizens what to do.
I say, enough with that!
Let us keep our money, and spend it on the projects that we feel are important.
I personally would be spending it on NASA, some of the big colliders, and a frosty cold beverage.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Am I personally surprised to find that Bush has once again lied about something??
Not really.
What cheeses me off is that smirk he affects when he is speaking down to people.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:56 pm
This is disgusting. That’s all that comes to mind.
This, in my opinion, shows that your president is shallow minded and can’t pause and think for five seconds. Very shallow man indeed.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Question #1: WHY THE HECK DID WE ELECT HIM?
Question #2: WHY THE HECK DID WE ELECT HIM AGAIN?
He is such an idiot…Sigh…one more year…
June 21st, 2007 at 1:59 pm
This makes my head hurt and now you have me worried that the thudding headache may be a harbinger of cranial detonation. Thanks.
“Interestingly, this makes me think of the abortion issue: conservatives argue that since a fetus has the potential to become a full person, terminating that life is morally wrong (in general). Roll back the clock a few cell-dividing months, and the analogy extends to an embryo.” -Doug
Roll the clock back even further and you’ll have to side with the Pope and Monty Python that “every sperm is sacred.” Add the advances of modern medicine in and you will have to include every cell in your body and every human cell culture in a lab. Heck, with just a bit of tweaking, you can even include cancer cells.
This is reducto ad absurdum of course, but the question is this: where is the line?
June 21st, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Cameron Ask:
Question #1: WHY THE HECK DID WE ELECT HIM?
Question #2: WHY THE HECK DID WE ELECT HIM AGAIN?
As to question #1: We didn’t. Check the record. He was appointed by the Supreme Court.
On to question #2: He lied. About everything. He ran up the colors on the Terro-threat o’ meter. (Has anyone noticed we haven’t had a threat announced since the election? Because of the fine work of his administration no doubt) And I’m still not convinced he won that election either.
I could go on but why bother. We all know the tune.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
The man makes me embarrassed to be an American.
The rest of the world sees HIM and thinks he speaks for US. They think we’re just as stupid and power hungry and backwards as he is. On the evening of 9/11/01, almost the entire world was on our side. Now who is?
And can you blame them with the things this idiot says and does in the name of the United States?
June 21st, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Science can take many paths. To say other research is not scientific is being about as hypocritical as you suggest President Bush is.
You have lived in Boulder too long.:)
June 21st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
GFX: Just so’s you know, I’ve been in Boulder three weeks.
Also, where did I say “other research is not scientific”? I said that lying about stem cell research to further a political goal is antiscientific.
And I’m not suggesting he’s being hypocritical. I’m saying he’s lying.
Now, if I pointed out that Tony Snow, at a White House press conference, said:
… and noted that Bush, as governor of Texas, presided over 152 state-funded death penalty executions, then yes, then I would be calling him a hypocrite.
June 21st, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Well that’s gonna leave a mark!
June 21st, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I know it’s your blog, and of course you are free to comment about what you wish. I really like the astronomy stuff. But you may want to rethink political posts, because you really come across as a dope.
He then made a statement which is, to be blunt, a lie:
“If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos.”
This is 100% absolutely untrue, and there is no way to interpret the bill to mean this. The bill would provide funding for additional research to use embryos which were going to be discarded anyway.
The embryos were going to be discarded, okay, but not with taxpayer funding. Which has been the crux of his argument, and his stem-cell compromise, all along, like it or hate it.
Or have non-sequitors suddenly become fashionable among “skeptics” who regurgitate Media Matters talking points without giving them any critical thought?
June 21st, 2007 at 3:40 pm
While I dislike Bush as much as the next person with an eye to improving science, and I’m not fond of defending him, I took what he said as meaning that the federal government does not fund embryonic stem cell research. That being said, I hope whoever is the next president begins investigations into Bush and company as I think they’ve deluded the public into doing some reprehensible things.
June 21st, 2007 at 3:48 pm
John, thank you for making the point. Why does the government have to fund this? If it truly could be the cure for so many ills, wouldn’t the major bio research firms be all over this? Pharm companies, anybody that might think this is both effective and potentially profitable. Do we really want the government in this?
June 21st, 2007 at 4:03 pm
John> The embryos were going to be discarded, okay, but not with taxpayer funding.
Don’t be silly. They are going to be _reused_ with taxpayer funding. Or is voluntary misquoting/lying _still_ fashionable among people who have opinions that they cannot justify?
–VIncent
June 21st, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Holy crap. Are we really going to do this again?
John, if you really only want to read about astronomy and nothing else, then by all means head on over to blogger or wordpress or livejournal or wherever else and start your own blog called “I don’t think about anything but astronomy.com”.
When you pop in on someone else’s blog and presume to tell them what they should or should not post about, you not only come across as a dope, but you come across as a rude dope.
Get some manners, OK?
June 21st, 2007 at 4:29 pm
I didn’t presume to tell him what he should or should not post about. Far from it, “I know it’s your blog, and of course you are free to comment about what you wish.” I’m just pointing out that for such a smart guy, he tends to not think political things through with the same rigor as if he was making a science post, and makes dopey mistakes.
June 21st, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Bush lied. Wow. I’ll alert the media.
The only surprise is that so many people still try to make excuses for the little weasel.
June 21st, 2007 at 4:37 pm
John: Was my post wrong, or are you ignoring it because I was right?
To say it othersize: why did you say “they are going to be discarded _with_ taxpayer money” when they _are_ being discarded _without_ taxpayer money? No matter what is right or wrong, you’re appealing to logic here, and your logic seams faulty.
It seems to me if you’re going to try and break an argument’s logic in two sentences, saying the person was “not careful”, you better read those 2 sentences carefully and ensure you didn’t make a stupid error before you post them.
–Vincent
June 21st, 2007 at 4:38 pm
John: Was my post wrong, or are you ignoring it because I was right?
To say it othersize: why did you say “they are going to be discarded _with_ taxpayer money” when the point of the post was that they _are_ being discarded _without_ taxpayer money? No matter what is right or wrong, you’re appealing to logic here, and your logic seams faulty.
It seems to me if you’re going to try and break an argument’s logic in two sentences, saying the person was not rigorous, you better read those 2 sentences carefully and ensure you didn’t make a stupid error before you post them.
–Vincent
June 21st, 2007 at 4:38 pm
heh.
June 21st, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Indeed, Daffy.
“Bush lied” is right up there with “The sky is blue, water is wet, and women have secrets.”
June 21st, 2007 at 4:51 pm
As a Catholic, I’m fully for stem cell research…
Ugh. Frustrating.
June 21st, 2007 at 4:52 pm
It seems to me, Vincent, that you are taking that one sentence entirely out of context to make your weak point.
I ignored your post because I didn’t want to embarrass you by pointing that out.
June 21st, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I don’t understand why people don’t frame this issue as being equivalent to organ donation. I mean, that’s exactly what it is! So if you come across somebody who is against stem cell research on ethical grounds, ask them if they are also against organ donation. In both cases (fertility clinic embryos and brain-dead organ donors), the “people” are going to die soon anyway, no matter what, so why not put their tissues to good use in saving other people’s lives? As for the potential rebuttal of “but organ donation requires consent and embryos can’t consent” you simply tell them that the embryo is technically a minor, and as such only parental consent is required for organ donation.
June 21st, 2007 at 5:15 pm
John> It seems to me, Vincent, that you are taking that one sentence entirely out of context to make your weak point.
Ok, let’s see. The sentence I took “out of context” was the one just before
“Which has been the crux of his argument, …”. One of, let’s see. A whole three sentences worth of argument?
As far as I can see, Phil said “X is a lie”, by which you thoughtfully responded “no, X is true. That has been his point all along, like it or hate it”.
You will have to be more precise, what did I understand wrong? Why is my point so weak? Don’t worry about embarassing me.
–Vincent
June 21st, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I believe his “thinking” is that no human embryos will be destroyed on his watch. And, much like the Iraq War and Teh War on Terruh, he really doesn’t give a damn what happens after he runs his cowardly ass out of town in ‘09.
Anyway, like many of the commenters here, I too am utterly exasperated at discussing this dismal failure of a president. I simply can no longer do so without feeling a white hot rage.
June 21st, 2007 at 5:19 pm
JanieBelle, to be fair to John, he wasn’t complaining that I talk politics; it’s his contention that I was wrong and sounded stupid.
However, John, I am not wrong. Read what Bush said again. He said that this bill would mean that taxpayer money would go toward destroying embryos. But the embryos would be destroyed anyway. A case can be made to say that what he said is “technically” true, but I’m not talking technicalities, I am talking realities.
And I will argue that he is doing this for all the wrong reasons, and is in fact a hypocrite about it (as I posted in an earlier comment). He is all about scuttling science, not supporting it.
June 21st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
“”Now, if I pointed out that Tony Snow, at a White House press conference, said:
The President also has never declared it against the law to engage in embryonic stem cell research — he simply thinks it involves, as do many other people, the taking of a human life, and, therefore, would require taxpayers to engage in a moral bargain that we don’t think they should have to be involved in.
… and noted that Bush, as governor of Texas, presided over 152 state-funded death penalty executions, then yes, then I would be calling him a hypocrite.”"
Not to mention the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians whose blood is on our collective hands - and the 3500+ American service personnel who have died in a ‘moral bargain’ which we the people were forced into… Nahhh no hypocricy there….
June 21st, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Hi Dr. BA!
Funny enough, I’d make a similar argument about John’s comment that you just made about The Glorified Houseplant Who Would Be Caesar.
While John technically didn’t say “you shouldn’t post about politics”, he did more or less say “Whenever you post about politics you are wrong and sound stupid”.
Seems to me that it amounts to the same thing as “Don’t post about politics”, or at least “Don’t post about politics unless you agree with me.”
I find that both rude and tiresome.
Kisses,
JanieBelle
June 21st, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Vincent and Phil: Bush’s quote is, “If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos.” Phil answered that that is a lie because the embryos would be destroyed anyway. That is a non sequitor - the point Bush is making that the embryos not be destroyed with taxpayer money. That has been his position all along - let privately funded research continue, but not use taxpayer money to fund it because many people find it morally objectionable. So, sorry, you are wrong.
To turn it around on you, Phil, the embryos will still be allowed to be destroyed for research. That just won’t be taxpayer funded.
Sorry about the dope comment.
June 21st, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Let me check the facts on this particular bill. Please correct me if I have any of them wrong. If this bill had been signed:
1. Stem cell research on embryos would be legal
2. Private/corporate researchers are free to conduct stem cell research on embryos
3. Some research on embryos would be done with federal money
4. Many unused embryos are destroyed
Since this bill wasn’t signed:
1. Stem cell research on embryos is legal
2. Private/corporate researchers are free to conduct stem cell research on embryos
3. No research on embryos will be done with federal money
4. Many unused embryos are destroyed
June 21st, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Tom,
Checking out the NIH website on stemcells, it would seem that your assessment is technically correct.
Further investigation, however, gives a subtle nuance to the discussion.
While private companies seem to be able to do whatever research they wish (I’m not entirely sure of that, but that’s the implication of the NIH site), a publicly funded researcher cannot. In other words, a University researcher, say at NC State University (just as an example) would only be allowed to use federal funds for research on very specific, limited stem cells. (The guidelines for exactly which lines are at the NIH website.)
Besides just being an anti-science position for our government to take, and besides the issue of tax-payers in need of a cure for their particular disease or defect YESTERDAY being denied the benefit of the power of the full resources of their own government:
A young researcher at NC State University who may have novel and useful ideas to contribute to the search for cures and treatments of diseases like Parkinson’s, can only use funding from private sources to work on stem cell lines other than the few the government has approved. Those lines may or may not be of any use to that researcher.
Now, if Merck (or whoever) has never heard of said young researcher, how likely is it that they are going to fork over truckloads of money to said young researcher?
And again, that’s ignoring the whole issue of Mr. Smith, a taxpayer who has Parkinson’s, who is being denied the use of his tax dollars toward finding a cure or treatment for his Parkinson’s, based on the superstitions of a few people with their hearts longingly in the dark ages and their heads firmly up their butts.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Crap, WHERE THE HECK IS THE PREVIEW BUTTON?
Sorry, I keep forgetting there isn’t one, and I clicked “Submit”.
Anyway, that’s what I gathered from the NIH website. Anyone read it differently? Have I missed anything important?
June 21st, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Yes, JB is correct. To make this analogy further, if NASA and NSF stopped funding science altogether, there would be no astronomy research done in this country (or near enough). The government funds essentially all of it. I think this is a good thing for governments to do; pay for things that are difficult or impossible for the private sector to do. If the White House decided that studying astronomy was morally reprehensible because it leads to the idea that the Earth is older than 6000 years (and remember 3/10 of the Republican candidates denounced evolution publicly), then astronomy would grind to a halt in this country.
Remember too that China and India are forging ahead in biological research. The U.S. used to be the forefront of applied scientific research. We’re now getting farther behind every day. We shouldn’t be vetoing bills like this; we should fund it to our full capacity.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Just some questions about Stem Cell research.
A> If it’s so great and has massive potential, why does it need Federal funding? If it has such “great potential” why aren’t Private Entities cornering the market on the cure for *fill in the blank* thanks to Stem Cells?
B> There are quite a few other 1st World high tech Countries with top notch Scientists out there, aren’t they doing anything with Stem Cells? Where are the breakthroughs from these “less Puritanical/Conservative” Countries?
These are questions coming from a non-voter who doesn’t give 2 nickels for anything Political, so I’m not coming at it from that angle, I just wonder, cuz I’m a wondering type of guy.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:45 pm
I think we should all sit back and watch some South Park.
South park is love.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:49 pm
A thought:
This is supposedly about Joe Fundy not wanting his tax dollars to go toward something he finds immoral, right?
Let’s propose a check box on your income tax return, just like the one for supporting politicians. If you want a dollar of your taxes to go to stem cell research, check the box. That way, Joe Fundy is not required to support something he finds objectionable.
And the second we do, there will be an outrage from the fundies, make no mistake about that.
Why? Because it isn’t about Joe Fundy’s tax dollars at all. It’s about Joe Fundy enforcing his superstition on everybody else. It’s about political control. It’s about Joe Fundy putting his boot on my neck. Plain and simple.
Ramen. I’m done pontificating for the night.
Goodnight, and Kisses to you all (even John b/c he apologized to Dr. BA)
June 21st, 2007 at 7:07 pm
This is probably going to elicit some really negative comments but what the heck, Im entitled to my opinion.
I have always felt that a child isnt really a human being until they are taught to be and until that time, they are just sophisticated animals. Sometimes that education takes 2 years, or maybe 5 years, and in the case of my nephew, 32 years hasnt been enough. All this business about children being so innocent is a lot of bunk. Children are the cruelest creatures on this planet. When was the last time you saw a child torturing a defensless critter like a cat or a frog or a fly. In any case, just because you have what may be a viable embryo doesnt mean you also have a viable human being. As an embryo it stands a good chance of enhancing the quality of life for all humanity but if quickened into a birth could just as easliy turn out to be another GW Bush or Jim Jones. Maybe this is senseless but I just dont think of a cell collection as a person. Do the fundamentalists believe a soul is created at the moment of conception? I dont know. Isnt that what this is really all about? Help me here…
June 21st, 2007 at 7:54 pm
And just to add another thought: Bush isn’t taking a very good stand on this even from his own viewpoint. If he thinks this is really murder, he should outlaw in vitro fertilization. This stance of not funding the research is no more a stance than the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. It’s a cheat. But politically, he’d never be able to get any Congressmen to put together a bill to do anything about in vitro fertilization.
incidentally, from what I have read, 70% of the American public wants funding for stem cell research.
This issue really boils down to a biology question: when is a collection of cells a human? And that regresses back to, what is a human? Religious people say it’s when the soul enters the body, but the Bible is silent on that topic. I don’t think there is a real answer, any more than there is one to, “What is a planet?” We are trying to draw a line across something that has extremely fuzzy borders. Science has hammered that point home time and again, but hardly anyone pays attention.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Not quite true. I’m ex-UK living in Australia & was quite disgusted at the time to hear & read so many comments from here & the UK/Europe to the effect that the US brought it on itself or had it coming. There was also a report of an Indonesian couple, both educated in the US, who popped open the champagne to celebrate when they heard the news.
Many private companies pay for the results of public funded research, but obviously only after that research has borne fruit. To make out that the difference in this situation is between ’some’ and ‘no’ is to hugely oversimplify things.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:15 pm
I really break from my libertarian peers on the issue of government funding of the sciences. Many of them think the feds should not fund *any* research, but I recognize the huge importance of scientific and technological endeavors (DARPA is a good example of more tech oriented gov-fundd research). It’s good for the world, and, yeah, I admit, it’s good for the good old US of A.
I also am unable to see the ethical issue. The embryos used in research were never going to become fetuses anyway. If it ere up to me, we’d have huge embryo farms.
Actually, I think the whole issue may be gone soon. They’re actually turning regular cells *back* *into* stem cells now, so the whole furor over ebryonic cells may just become moot.
>>> Let’s propose a check box on your income tax
>>> return, just like the one for supporting politicians.
>>> If you want a dollar of your taxes to go to stem cell
>>> research, check the box.
No to be too snarky, but you can send whatever money you want to your favorite stem cell researches at any moment. Why bother with the government overhead?
June 21st, 2007 at 8:16 pm
A few points:
1. There is a purpose to public/government funding in sectors that are for the public good but the cost would be too high for the private sector to fund the research.
2. Try to remember the congress is already dumping money into earmarks and other pet projects which does not leave a lot left over for research. Call your Congressman now about transparency in the budget.
3. Please do not forget the recent advancements funded by the private sector (space tourism, laser eye surgery, countless drugs, and many more). Try to have some faith in the market it historically has provided the best solutions.
4. If an individual taxpayer wants his or her tax money to go to stem cell research, then donate money to the NC university and write the donation off.
5. Last point, the states are becoming competitive on who can attract more researchers to their state by making a bunch of money avaliable. Remember keep politics local and keep the federal government focused on the national defense.
A response to the gentleman who wanted to compare embyros to organs or minor children that are puppets to their parents most twisted desires, please do not cross that line, ever. Children are to be cared for not be treated as raw material to fix somenbody else with medical problems. There are alternatives (adult stem cells or cord blood) that do not involve the destruction of an embryo.
Keep the debate civil since name calling does not advance anybody’s ideas it only advances conflict. From most of the anti-war comments, I would gather that most of the people do not like war/conflict.
Thanks for the forum.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Bryan D.: this link might answer some questions.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5376892
June 21st, 2007 at 8:24 pm
>>> incidentally, from what I have read, 70% of the
>>> American public wants funding for stem cell research.
Don’t worry. Here in California we have a $3 billion stem cell research institute. We’ll save you all.
http://www.cirm.ca.gov/
This was the first government spending I ever voted for. Probably last, but there ya go.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:07 pm
I’ve stopped trying to make sense of anything our president does anymore. The man is an idiot and we can only hope he doesn’t do much more damage to our country before his term is up. I’m 17 years old and he’s created messes that I will be paying for when I’m my parents age.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:13 pm
[…] Get the whole story… […]
June 21st, 2007 at 9:14 pm
What is with most Americans these days? All clamouring for some “progressive science rights” to take embryos and grow them for replacement parts.
Helllllo people???? What are y’all a bunch of Nazi’s scientists? Last I heard you can get a replacement liver from taking it from another human being. It’s called organ market. You could replace all sorts of body parts if you steal them from others.
All you people whining about how Bush prevents you from killing human embryo’s to get your progressive science are a bunch of cowards. I would like you to be honest enough to say the same thing about 3rd world’ers–that all their body parts could save sick people too.
The problem with you advocating the theft of body parts from third world people is that they are big enough to fight back… and they can scream when you chop them up, which makes it a bit uncomformtable for you.
How about respecting human life–born and unborn? Do the hard science and research why disease happens and create cures without killing the innocent to get there.
Calling this a science vs. anti-science debate is a cop-out. This issue is about the strong vs. the weak and whether the weak will be protected from those who want to harvest them for parts.
Even aborted baby girls are harvested for human eggs — they can be mother’s but can’t be children. We are a sick society when we allow the explotation of the innocent.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Bush is a joke. I know how most of you guys feel. But I always feel like I’m all alone in feeling this deep rage in my gut. Why can’t this idiot be removed from office? Where did America go so wrong?
June 21st, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Has anyone noticed we haven’t had a threat announced since the election? Because of the fine work of his administration no doubt
Of course, there was the totally silly ‘JFK Airport was gonna be blowed up’ plan….
J/P=?
June 21st, 2007 at 10:24 pm
The headline on Digg states this:
“President vetoes stem cell research bill, without even reading it?”
If he never read the article, then his claim is a mistake, not a lie.
Inorder to lie, one has to have the intent to mislead. If he never read the article, then he didn’t lie, he was simply mistaken.
Either way, Bush is screwing up, yet again.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Cures for life threatening diseases > embryos that were otherwise going to be …. discarded.
And assuming that all Americans are like their president is old. I HATE Bush with a passion.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Time all anti-abortionists joined together to stop the greatest waste of human life of all…ABORTION BY INACTION! Science tells us that the human egg is 1000 times the size of the male sperm, so every month millions of women in the US (and other countries that need not concern us) allow these babies that are 99.99% complete to die for lack of a single sperm. Fortunately science provides an answer, since men can provide huge numbers of the necessary sperm a simple artificial insemination program could easily supply all women who couldn’t find a donor for themselves. WATCH THIS WEBSITE for details of how to join our movement and where to send donations!
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:05 am
[…] could be, I have to admit. Stories lately have made me a little less proud of our country, such as this, this and this. But times change, and I hold to the hope that the United States can survive the […]
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:34 am
If stem cell research is such a viable option for saving lives, then why doesn’t the media or partisan supporters show options from other countries that do condone the uses to the American public? I’m a Republican and I support about 80% of what President Bush does, regardless of what I think of the man personally. On stem cell research, I’m open for debate. The fact of the matter is, using common sense to analyze the issue, if stem cell research was a serious and viable option, other countries would be looking into the research and medical production from its benefits, surpassing America as the option. Furthermore, medical corporations here in America that truly saw promise for it would merely operate research projects overseas for just the thing, much like many companies here outsource their jobs to India, China, etc to save money. I’m not arguing with the use of stem cells as a means of curing people. I’m just arguing that there is no definitive evidence to suggest that it has a certainty of working. Sure some of it works on animals, but that doesn’t necessarily hold true for animals. They can cure AIDS in rats, but can’t with humans. Furthermore, if the research proves beneficial, who do you think would be in control of dispersing the benefits that it provides? The county hospital downtown? No. The big medical corporations who, lets not kid ourselves, most proponents of stem cell research despise. Sure it could cure cancer, alzheimer’s, and fix spinal columns, but you’ll have to be a millionaire (or in your terms, a Bush cronie) to afford it. If you want stem cell research, pray (or whatever you do to beckon good tidings on others) for China, Canada, France, Great Britain, or even the medically “superior” Cuba to provide the ground work for it. Once the process yields results in other countries, I think you’ll find that the American government, no matter what affiliation they reside on, will leap at the opportunity to support it here to either exploit it for money or to give America the winner’s pride of making it more mainstream and globalized. Once again, I am not for stem cell research, but I’m not against it either. I don’t know that it works, but I don’t know that it doesn’t work either. And I’ll be damned if I listen to politicians tell me the truth.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:48 am
Thanks for the correction on my understanding of the bill. I remember the ‘lines’ policy set before 9/11. If I remember correctly, Time magazine said it would the defining moment of the Bush presidency.
I agree with BA that, to be totally consistent, the President would have to outlaw in-vitro fertilization. Does anyone have any information on federal funding of in-vitro fertilization? If that’s not allowed, and the embryos are created (and destroyed) without federal monies, the policy could be considered consistent.
While I’m not happy with the call (I’m not happy with much going on in Washington today), I’m sure that research will move forward though at a slower rate. The potential benefits are just too great. A similar situation happened when federal SETI funding was cut. California’s work is good and one example.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:49 am
(second paragraph addition) I don’t expect consistency from public officials.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:21 am
Just for the information of many people here. The rest of the world is doing loads of stem cell research. You don’t hear about it in the States because you don’t hear about anything outside the US in the States. Iraq, maybe, on a good day.
A few cells are not equivalent to a human being. There is no nervous sytem, no brain. If we classify these lumps of cell as fully human we have no other choice then to give human rights to all living creatures. Since even the most dimwitted frog has more claim to it than a few cells. When people are braindead we can keep them going on a heart / lung machine. We should then?
Being in favor of the death penalty and yet taking this anti-abortion and anti stemcell research stance is hypocritical.
It is also amazing that Tony Snow is happy to inform us that president is happy for private companies to conduct research. Yes, a real moral stance taken there.
Lastly. Ban IVF. Be consistent.
Politicians are never very good around science. After all science is often inconvenient. It is never what you want it to be. This administration has been worse than others in trying to distort science. Bush because he is reborn and Rove because he understood that he could get votes with this tactic.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:25 am
Something I read in a blog the other day resonated with my inner CT:
Without public funding, all discoveries will be made by private institutions - who will then have a stranglehold on the IP, and will be able to wring more profits out of this than if they had to share credit with public institutions.
So GWB appeases his fundamentalist backers, and enriches his big-business backers, in one stroke.
A CT worth considering, even if it’s ultimately debunked.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:50 am
There are essentially three turning points in the development of a human being that are relevant to the stem cell debate. The first is conception, the second is the 24th week, when a fetus can survive outside the womb, and the third is birth. In countries where abortion is legal, the limit is set at the 24th week exactly for this reason.
Before the 24th week, the fetus/embryo is fair game. There is no need to worry about a sliding scale and be logically forced to proclaim that every sperm is sacred. There is no sliding scale!
Of course, this is a scientific approach, and we know that it’s worth **** all to this administration…
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:56 am
Well, there is debat eabout that 24 week limit. Science is progressing and it is not inconceivable that limit will be reduced. The problem is that the vast majority of babies that manage to survive are severely disabled and we should wonder whether we should always try and keep these babies alive.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:16 am
I’m not surprised there is debate about the 24 week issue. I did’t think the “pro-life” faction was going to give up that easily.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:43 am
Quit your whining, you liberal babies. You didn’t get the funding $$$ that you were after…just admit that’s the real reason why you’re crying.
If this stem cell research was THAT important to you, as you say, then you’d fund it with your own voluntary contributions. Did you? No? Then YOU are the liars.
Your leftist hypocrisy has been exposed for all to see. LOL!!!
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:46 am
24 weeks is a non-issue. At that point a termination is almost never a matter of the woman just not wanting to have a baby, it’s going to be for sound medical reasons. If, for example they discover you’ve going to give birth and have the baby die within hours then why on earth would any sane, compassionate person require you to go through with the rest of the pregnancy? It’s not a walk in the park even if you’re expecting a healthy baby! It always bugs me the people, usually men, who talk like having a baby is easy and something that has no impact on a woman’s health or even daily life.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:58 am
Ruth,
You’re living in a dream world if you think that women don’t murder their unborn children at 24 weeks for purely social reasons.
Stop watching Oprah, reading Time magazine, and talking to only your friends who unthinkingly echo your own sentiments. There is a whole world outside your ivory tower.
Women abort their children 99.9% of the time out of convenience…including at 24 weeks.
If you don’t think so, then why do leftist politicians keep trying to ensure that partial-birth abortion, where the baby is delivered out of the mother except for its head and where its brain is sucked out, is kept legal. They wouldn’t be worried about it if such occurrences were sooo rare.
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:17 am
Jim,
Your ignorance is astounding. Your views of women amazingly insulting. About 1% of abortions are after week 20. For good reasons. It is almost always because of medical reasons.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:52 am
The whole thing was a way for the Democrats (Dummycrats) to make political hay. The president said he would veto that bill. The democrats pushed it through, knowing it would be vetoed and they did not have the votes to override, strictly as a political manuver. They are worse than Bush.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:44 am
Here we are driving whole species into extinction and the vast majority of people (it seems to me) care more about microscopic blobs just because they’re human. I believe the big problem is that modern city dwellers think they are somehow not part of nature. They are! And if they believe otherwise let them check out the situation with honey bees in North America as just one example.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:45 am
Thanks Mark. Some people just don’t let facts get in the way of ideology, not to mention that he missed the mark on my viewing and reading habits
But of course he needs to believe that I’m a stereotype so he can dismiss anything I have to say. I wonder why he’s even reading the BA blog, maybe it got picked up on some ‘pro-life’ site because of the use of the A word, because I can’t believe it’s from of a love of science!
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:54 am
There’s a lot of people on science blogs that make me wonder. They only like the science that fits in with their world views. That’s why BA gets such angry replies to these types of posts. They were happily staring at pretty pictures of galaxies and all of a sudden they are pulled out of their comfort zone.
Anyway, reading some of these anti abortion sites it is truly amazing in the level of creativity in grouping reasons for abortion under “convenience”.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:57 am
Lost one to the queueueueueueueue, Dr. BA. (I have it copied in RAM, and about to turn it into a post at my blog, so if you can’t find it or it’s not there, no biggie.)
Kisses,
JanieBelle
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:57 am
As their political power diminishes, and as the world sees them for the racist, sexist, superstitious, warmongering, irrational morons they are, The American Right gets more and more desperate.
So keep flinging insults on blogs, Republitards - Just as one day your near-extinct descendants will throw their own feces at the zoo visitors who gawk at them, and wonder how such depraved and degenerate creatures could ever have been considered human.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:20 am
I think a bumper sticker I saw a couple days ago says it all about most “science” pronouncements from Shrub, as well as all this administration’s misadventures:
1-20-09: End of an Error
Les
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:26 am
I have a bit of a problem with the labels “American Right”, and “Christian Right” when describing the ultra-conservative theocrats.
The characterization of these groups as “American” or “Christian” is somewhat like calling a 6′8″ 350lb man ‘tiny’.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:30 am
Jim Spaza,
Do you not have anything productive to do? Seriously, if I were thirteen, and my mommy was in bed, and I was sneaking some 3 AM computer time, I think I’d rather be looking for nudie pics than spreading ignorance and hate.
Further, your poor choice of venue bodes not well for your intellectual prowess. There are lots of big people here, and they tend to have adult conversations. When you grow up you’ll know enough to contribute productively, but for the moment maybe you should surf on over to a blog that’s set up for children.
Perhaps you’d be more comfortable at Uncommonly Dense.
Hope I’ve been helpful, but if you need me to, I’ll be happy to tell you what some of the big words mean.
JanieBelle
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:32 am
[…] pretty reasonable discussion of the recent veto of the stem cell research bill has been going on over at BadAstronomy, the website of The World’s Greatest […]
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:34 am
Here’s the deal with “W”. He doesn’t think things through. What the hell is going to happen to those embryos? They are going to be thrown in the f-ing trash without any benefit to humanity, that in my opinion is murdering the people that science could help. People that pay taxes and elected his retarded ass in the first place. I would agree that harvesting embryos with only stem cell research in mind would be wrong, but if the collection process is ETHICAL, I see no problem with it.
I am a republican and will always be a republican; I am ashamed of our dumbass president. Hopefully ROMNEY will get the republican nomination. His wife has Multiple Sclerosis; he might have a reason to reform stem cell research laws in the future.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:44 am
Robert,
Unfortunately, Romney stands with the president on this, according to CNN:
Further forced pregnancy idiocy from the White House in the news.
Felt it was appropriate given the direction the thread is turning, although not strictly on point of the original topic.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:45 am
‘nuther one in the queueueue, Dr. BA.
Robert, in the comment that I just lost to the vacuum of space, I posted a CNN link that says Romney is against expanding the stem cell research.
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:15 am
I can’t wait to tell the children of the future why the United States of America has fallen behind on scientific development.
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:30 am
I don’t mind the idea of the US slipping into theocratic ignorance so much.
Sure, it will dramtically slow the global pace of scientific and technological progress. But at least we will no longer have to live in constant fear of you, at least once you lose even the ability to maintain your gigatons worth of death-machines.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:05 am
So many people, the media included, make the mistake of viewing the president’s position on stem cell research as a moral position. Make no mistake, his 2 vetoes have NOTHING to do with morality or a pro-life platform. It’s all about money.
His veto does not ban the research, it bans federal funding for the research. If the research is federally funded, and they discover cures for everything from cancer to paralysis, the government, We The People, own the patent. Thus no windfall profits.
Without federal competition, the first private company to patent the research, and there are already plenty of stem cell lines that are privately patented, collects the profits of a cure.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:56 am
Jim Spaza -
There are these things. Called facts. I know they’re scary, and require effort to find, but they are out there, and you really ought to go looking for them.
In spite of what you may think, we women don’t spring from bed every morning, eager to greet a new day in the hopes that we get pregnant so we can horrifically murder the fetus because it’s an inconvenience in our fast-paced, slutty lives of drugs and fun.
The so-called partial birth abortion accounts for less than 1% of performed abortions and is used to save the mother’s life. Not that I expect you to give a rat’s ass about that, considering you seem to think we women are so villainous that we consider pregnancy a lark that can be terminated at any time just because we feel like it.
Abortion is not something women do for fun; it’s a difficult decision, and something that is not without health risks. To imply otherwise shows a profound disrespect for women as human beings, and a breathtaking lack of empathy.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:58 am
OK Phil, I’ve been waiting for the death penalty red herring to rear it’s head again. Let’s put aside for a moment the the fact that the difference between abortion and the death penalty is the difference between taking of innocent life vs. executing a criminal who was responsible for his/her own actions. Let’s just agree that all life is sacred. Assuming that you and I had the power to make the laws, would you agree to outlaw abortion if I agree to outlaw the death penalty? Even with the differences stated above, that’s a bargain I would be willing to strike.
Now for the handling of “surplus” embryos. There are many who believe that the destruction of embryos is wrong, that it is murder. Therefore, it is simply wrong to use their taxes to fund the creation of those embryos that you know will have to be discarded as well as it is wrong to use their taxes fund research that requires their distruction. As far as I know, taxes are not used to create the surplus embryos and taxes shouldn’t be used to destroy them either. If private funding is used, as long as it is not illegal, it’s OK. Contrary to what many of the President’s critics are saying, nothing that has been done makes embryonic stem cell research illegal. In my book, saying what the Administration is doing is making embryonic stem cell research is a lie, because they know it doesn’t make it illegal, but they are using extreme language to try to gain a political advantage.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:00 am
I have a question… Where any Federal Funds used in the research and development that led to the science that is utilized in Fertility Clinics?
Do you follow me here?
If any federal monies were used to fund the research that ultimately led to the availability of in-vitro-fertilization (IVF), then the Federal Government HAS already “compel(ed) American taxpayers… to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos.â€
Does anyone know if Federal Funds were used in this way?
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:03 am
DenverAstro: I agree with you, but I’d say a child isn’t human until it becomes self-aware. That is however a very hard thing to determine, and happens at a different time for every individual. Personally, I remember the moment I become self-aware. It was about a month before my 4th birthday. Before that I had several brief flashes of awareness, but nothing that lasted more than a few moments.
This is not to say I don’t remember anything from before I was self-aware; I actually remember a great deal, all the way back to just after I turned 2 years old (I have an excellent memory). But I wasn’t self-aware. I was simply an animal who had been taught to walk and talk. This continued to be the case until I gained sufficient knowledge to become, well, sentient.
As I said, I very specifically remember when I first became a person. This doesn’t negate any moral arguement against stem-cell research or anything. I just thought I’d mention it as it follwed from your comment.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:03 am
I would just like to say that government funded stem cell research in Britain (which uses embryo’s that would have been discarded from IVF treatments) has already began making breakthroughs in reversing the damage to cells in the brain, this has proved successful in mice and has raised some serious potential to reverse or even cure diseases such as Alzheimer’s.
If the American government wants ‘the most advanced western civilization’ to fall, much like its health care system, into the dark ages, then it can be my guest. Maybe when another country takes the glory for doing something genuinely great, then the American administration can stop worrying about profits for big business and start to worry about the welfare of its people.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:11 am
There is more tahn a little bit of irony here.
Bush said, “Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical, and it is not the only option before us,”
Appearantly this logic does not apply to ebryos that have actually gone full-term and einlisted in the armed service.
http://freephilosophicaldiscussions.blogspot.com/2007/06/saving-lives.html
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:11 am
The argument of stem cell research is it’s wrong or it’s a positive step into medical science for possible cures. How could it be so wrong to help so many people? These cells that are being discarded and going to waste, could be “recycled” and be put to very important use. I am an organ donor. I have the consent to release my organs, upon my death, to canidates that could be life saving. A heart, a liver, two lungs, and two kidneys, I could possibly save six lives. Six people could live because of me. Why can’t we have the parent(s) or guardian(s) of these cells sign a release form as us organ donors do? Imagine how many lives could be saved and how many diseases we could cure.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:15 am
All this stuff about tax money not being used because some people don’t agree with it. Everybody disagrees with something. Should we have no tax money spend? I don’t agree with the war in Iraq, so let’s stop spending the cash there. I’m against the death penalty, yet tax money is used in that horrific institution.
Hey, I don’t agree with Dick Cheney being there. Stop paying his salary!
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:32 am
Im going to go ahead and say something semi controvertial. The benefits of stem cell research will be reaped by the upper class. Everyone that has been pushing for it could come to realize that all they have done is given the rich a way to live longer. This would give democrats another thing to complain about. Rich get richer and live longer and the poor get poorer.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:33 am
Here is my problem with all of this. If someone truly believes that an embryo is a human being, how can he/she possibly support IVF.
IVF requires the creation of numerous embryos, most of which will be destroyed, for the creation of a single life. Since the anti stem cell position is that we cannot destroy life to save life, how can people possibly reconcile this? Especially given that the nature of IVF is such that it will (probably) always be a net negative in terms of babies born v embryos destroyed.
Also, how can people only support a ban on Federal funding, shouldn’t you be calling for laws making embryo destruction a capital offense?
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:11 am
I have to go with John on this: calling Bush a liar is likely incorrect. There are two things that could make him wrong:
First, if there is already stem cell research with federal funding. Because he said this is the first time, he would be wrong.
Second, if this bill wouldn’t actually give federal funding to stem cell research. Since he claims it will, he would be wrong.
On the matter of “is Bush lying”, it is completely irrelevant that the stem cells would be destroyed anyway. He never (to my knowledge) claimed “this will cause stem cells that would otherwise survive to be destroyed”. He claimed that American tax dollars would be supporting the destruction of embryonic stem cells.
Now, even if one or both of the above two statements is correct, it doesn’t mean that he is lying for sure. It is completely possible that he simply doesn’t know (especially if he’s the incredible buffoon you make him out to be–a debate I’m not interested in joining right here, though I tend towards agreeing with that accusation).
A reductio ad absurdum example of why your logic is silly: let’s say I live in a country where it’s legal to torture people with blue eyes, and I do so. Now, let’s say the House introduces a bill that funds my torture of blue-eyed people. Those people were getting tortured anyways, but now it’s being explicitly supported by the US government, and indirectly by every tax-paying American. To say “this bill compels American taxpayers to support the deliberate torture of blue-eyed people” is, by your logic, a lie. As such a statement would in fact be true, your logic is wrong.
Now, I have another bone to pick: what’s with people and equating abortion to the death penalty? They are quite obviously not even remotely the same thing. I cannot fathom how any semi-intelligent person could even pretend to think they are.
The argument against abortion is that the aborted fetuses should be considered human. If they aren’t human, there’s not really a reason why we can’t destroy them. But if they are human, people are murdering children because they don’t want a kid; it is no different than me killing an 8-year old girl because I don’t want to spend my money to feed her anymore. If a fetus is human, abortion is legalized murder, period. It is allowing Jane Public to assassinate an innocent human because she couldn’t keep her panties on and doesn’t want to deal with the consequences. (I am aware that some abortions fall into less self-serving categories, but the vast majority of abortions are a matter of convenience. The less common reasons for abortion deserve discussion, but it’s rather moot if we’re already allowing because-I-can abortions.)
The death penalty, on the other hand, is a *penalty* for doing bad things. It is not an arbitrary “you know, I don’t like this guy so I’m going to just kill him” kind of thing–it’s a specific, deliberated decision to remove a major threat to society from the planet. We don’t exact the death penalty on people because they were born at an inconvenient time. Nor because they made a rounding mistake on their tax return. Nor because they stole a CD player out of a car. Nor even because they weren’t paying attention and accidentally ran over and killed a kid who was using the crosswalk. We exact the death penalty as punishment for only the most severe of crimes, and we spend years going back and forth to make sure this particular person actually deserves this punishment.
Supporting the death penalty while decrying abortion is not hypocrisy by any stretch of the word. Supporting both the death penalty and abortion would be closer to hypocrisy: supporting the murder of babies while saying murderers should be executed seems very hypocritical to me, but that assumes you support the death penalty for murderers and consider feti to be babies (and are therefore supporting the murder of babies). In most cases, neither position (nor the positions against both or just against the death penalty) is hypocritical.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:19 am
MichaelS -
An eight-year-old girl is not making use of another person’s internal organs in order to sustain its own life.
An embryo is.
A very good ethical argument has been made previously (see Judith Jarvis Thomson’s essay) that deliberate murder is not the same as denying someone permission to use your body in order to survive.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:19 am
If you say all life is sacred and yet you are in favor of the death penalty, you are hypocritical.
I can’t be bothered but maybe somebody will post a link to all the data on innocent people being executed through the ages?
Besides that, murder is murder. The state should murder anybody.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:23 am
DJ slipped this one in…
Oh I’m sure you would. Except that you casually slipped in the “embryo is a human being” thing as an assumption, an assumption without merit, and without consensus.
Nice try, slick.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:31 am
MichaelS,
I agree. The death penalty involves a human being, and no semi-intelligent person would equate the two.
I note that all the blame for this hypothetical pregnancy of Jane Public is all her fault, and that she is obviously a slut because she couldn’t resist her desire to have sex.
So who do you s’pose knocked her up? I notice you didn’t mention the man who couldn’t keep his jock strap on.
How many years did it take you to achieve this level of misogyny? Your low opinion of women is revolting and offensive.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:08 am
(Note that I don’t have kids, have never gotten anyone pregnant, and never had anything to do with any abortion–these are all purely hypothetical situations.)
JanieBelle: It’s really irrelevant–unless she got raped, she is at fault. Regardless of who helped, she is at fault. All blaming the guy means is that because I helped make the baby I’m partly to blame for getting it murdered. The fact that it’s a killing of convenience doesn’t change.
My reason for giving her the blame is that, as a guy, I have no say in her getting an abortion. I cannot keep her from aborting the child, nor can I force her to have an abortion. Because she has complete control of that situation, I give her full responsibility of that situation. If she didn’t want a kid, she should have thought about it *before* she made it. Just like I should consider the consequences of having to pay her child support if she decides to keep it before I help her make the kid.
And I never said it was wrong for her to have sex. I never said it was wrong for her to get pregnant. I simply said that because it was her actions that she was directly responsible for, she is directly responsible for what happens as a result. Neither did I absolve the guy from the same responsibility–I simply omitted him because he’s irrelevant to the point in case, though I expected that my omission would turn into a beside-the-point argument over whether I’m sexist.
Katsu: The 8-year old girl was not a comparison to stem-cell research; it was a comparison to abortion. I don’t believe they use an aborted fetus for scientific purposes, but if they do, I make the argument that I could donate my 8-year old daughter’s organs to save lives.
Mark UK: I agree calling all life sacred and favoring the death penalty is hypocritical. But opposing the murder of children and favoring the death penalty is not the same thing.
Also, I understand that there are mistakes in the system. I am not arguing that the reality of executions is as perfect as the theory. The idea is that the occasional mistake is worth the many non-mistakes. That idea is in effect everywhere–without it, we would not have a society, and would probably cease to function.
gopher65 (I didn’t see your comment before posting my last one): I was self-aware before the age of 3 for a fact, and distinctly wondered if the owl outside my window was self-aware like me, or just a “thing” like my stuffed animals. At the age of 1 (I think I’d turned 1 already, but i Know I hadn’t turned 2 yet), I didn’t have the knowledge to understand the difference between an animated thing and a being, so I assumed a tree blowing in the wind had thoughts like I did (also, pareidolia kicked in and I thought the cut-off end of a branch had a face). However, I did understand that a toothbrush was a thing, not a being. When I was younger than that, I knew my grandma was a distinct entity separate from myself, but it’s just a vague breath of a thought (accompanied by the view looking up from her arms), with nothing for me to really date it by.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:26 am
MichaelS
With attitudes like yours, I am unsurprised.
With that, I believe I shall retire from this conversation.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:34 am
Stem cells are not “children”.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:57 am
About some revelations about abortion statistics (99,9% because of convenience)…
Being Dead Is Very Incovenient.
And I don’t talk about festus. But women don’t matter anyway, judging from many, many posts here.
Scary.
Must not say ad hominems… must not… I have willpower…. I have…
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:10 am
>>> What is with most Americans these days?
Which Americans? We have the one of the most diverse populations in the history of the world. Only ideological bigots refer to “Americans” as a single minded monolith. You’re not a ideological bigot, are you?
>>> All clamouring for some “progressive science rights†to take
>>> embryos and grow them for replacement parts.
Yup. If I were in charge we’d have vast embryo farms cultivating billions of them. And they’d be available in BBQ flavor. Oh, and there’d be abortions available for free at sidewalk kiosks.
>>> Helllllo people????
Hi!
>>> What are y’all a bunch of Nazi’s scientists?
Woops!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
>>> Last I heard you can get a replacement liver from taking
>>> it from another human being. It’s called organ market.
Last I heard there was still rejection problems.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/527971/
Actually, this raises another issue. Last I checked, growing replacement parts would involve a person’s own stem cells, so you’re really muddling up two issues here. Why does that not surprise me.
>>> You could replace all sorts of body parts if you steal
>>> them from others.
Some times you don’t have to steal them. There’s these folks called donors.
Although if you must steal, it’s better to hire some Gray Aliens. Thay’re really good at it.
Oh, another thing if I were in charge: mandatory organ donorship as a requirement for full citizenship.
>>> All you people whining about how Bush prevents you from killing
>>> human embryo’s to get your progressive science are a bunch
>>> of cowards.
Science = progress. Yes.
You see, the whole problem here is your magical mystery notion that an embryo is alive.
>>> I would like you to be honest enough to say the same thing about
>>> 3rd world’ers–that all their body parts could save sick people too.
AAAAAH! It’s the world’s most flammable straw man! Look out! You! Over there! Put out that cigarette!
I’m sorry sweet cheeks, but flat out: equating embryos to living humans is idiocy. Period. End Of Line. Full Stop. No Carrier.
>>> The problem with you advocating the theft of body parts from
>>> third world people is that they are big enough to fight back…
Wait! YOU said it! Not us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
>>> and they can scream when you chop them up, which makes
>>> it a bit uncomformtable for you.
Nah! You can buy, like, ear plugs or something. Or you slice out their vocal cords first.
>> How about respecting human life–born and unborn?
Respect a handful of cells? No thanks.
>>> Do the hard science and research why disease happens and
>>> create cures without killing the innocent to get there.
Oh my! But what about all those innocent lab monkeys! For shame! Won’t someone think of the cuddly little lab monkeys?! Weeeep weeeep weeeeeeeeeep!
>>> Calling this a science vs. anti-science debate is a cop-out.
No, it’s precise. Scientifically precise.
>>> This issue is about the strong vs. the weak and whether the weak
>>> will be protected from those who want to harvest them for parts.
Embryos don’t have parts, honeybunch.
OK, I’m done with you.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:20 am
>>> The benefits of stem cell research will be reaped by the upper class.
They were the first to enjoy commercial air travel, too. And televisions. And cars. And houses not built out of sticks and mud. Lord Ugg of the Lion Clan probably had the biggest, bestest cave in all the Rift Valley.
New things start out expensive, that’s all. Things really do trickle down.
Trying to make it into a class warfare argument is just ideological zerothink. Unfortunately, ideological zerothink is what passes for 99.9% of “debate” these days.
You could just as easily say the rich subsidize the productizationand mainstreaming of new technologies.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:21 am
[…] JanieBelle needs a little cool-off time after she almost crawled through the computer to throttle some woman hating fundy jerk named MichaelS over at […]
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:04 pm
DJ: a note: I did in fact mention the death penalty, but only because Tony Snow said that killing embryos would the first time taxpayers will have to support killing humans. That is a blatantly hypocritical stance (and assumes embryos are humans).
I was not equating destroying embryos with the death penalty, although it does appear that others here have. Nor does it mean that I am saying they are on equal footing; they are not. I won’t