More of the Same
The "culture of life" supports torture and sexual humiliation, allows genocides to continue uninterrupted, forces women to undergo abortions in the Mariana Islands, and actively promotes killing brown-skinned foreigners by the tens of thousands, never mind the thousands of American lives lost -- but you try to help sick people by growing some embryonic cells, and you got a fight on your hands.
President Bush, you know, has never vetoed any bill in his two terms in office. The one-party federal regime has very well coordinated their draining of the public trust, so there has been no conflict between legislative and executive branches. But this is where he's going to put his foot down:
Most Americans see how backwards this is. Most of us would rather have cures for terrible diseases and risk violating some technical theological ruling regarding the instant that life begins.
Our comments have been interesting lately, as one Anonymouse embarrasses the other and trolls and nuts struggle to outdo each other. We've got people in the comments quoting Ann Coulter as a scientific authority. We've got people arguing that global warming is creating a new Garden of Eden, as Greenland becomes a jungle. We've got a guy stating as a fact that Noah's ark has been found. It's quite interesting watching them assert and justify and rationalize and, oh yes, call people names. For those readers who think this fight is pulling up to an end, and that the obvious is becoming obvious to everyone, just go through our comments.
Some people will accept any evidence that what they already believe is correct.
Back to our story:
... "persuaded by new science?" ...
I don't think so.
President Bush, you know, has never vetoed any bill in his two terms in office. The one-party federal regime has very well coordinated their draining of the public trust, so there has been no conflict between legislative and executive branches. But this is where he's going to put his foot down:
The Senate moved Tuesday toward sending a bill expanding federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to President Bush, who has promised a swift veto his first.
Neither the Senate nor the House is expected have the two-thirds majorities necessary to override the president's opposition. Stem Cell Bill expected to Force Bush Veto
Most Americans see how backwards this is. Most of us would rather have cures for terrible diseases and risk violating some technical theological ruling regarding the instant that life begins.
Our comments have been interesting lately, as one Anonymouse embarrasses the other and trolls and nuts struggle to outdo each other. We've got people in the comments quoting Ann Coulter as a scientific authority. We've got people arguing that global warming is creating a new Garden of Eden, as Greenland becomes a jungle. We've got a guy stating as a fact that Noah's ark has been found. It's quite interesting watching them assert and justify and rationalize and, oh yes, call people names. For those readers who think this fight is pulling up to an end, and that the obvious is becoming obvious to everyone, just go through our comments.
Some people will accept any evidence that what they already believe is correct.
Back to our story:
"This is a vote that millions of Americans are watching," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. "They can't understand why America for the last five years has shut down medical research that promises hope."
Bush stood fast, with midterm elections just ahead and the Republicans' congressional majority at stake.
"He would veto the bill," the White House said in a written statement, underlining the words for emphasis. It would be the first veto Bush has cast during his 5 1/2 years in office.
The White House statement quieted speculation by supporters that Bush, perhaps persuaded by new science and strong public support for embryonic stem cell research, would reverse course and sign the legislation.
... "persuaded by new science?" ...
I don't think so.
posted by JimK at 12:48 PM
19 Comments:
"Our comments have been interesting lately, ... trolls and nuts struggle to outdo each other."
"It's quite interesting watching them assert and justify and rationalize and, oh yes, call people names."
"...trolls and nuts..."
"oh yes, call people names."
"Our comments have been interesting lately, as one Anonymouse embarrasses the other"
Nah, just trying to give credit (or discredit, depending on your outlook) where it is due.
"and trolls and nuts struggle to outdo each other."
Didn't notice any competition. People have different opinions and, obviously, TTF groups anyone who disagrees with them together. When several TTFers go off with multiple comments, are they "struggling to outdo each other"?
"We've got people in the comments quoting Ann Coulter as a scientific authority."
I didn't see that. I saw someone identify how some interesting facts came to her attention. If you cite a Post story about a scientific study, does that mean you think the Post is a scientific authority?
"We've got people arguing that global warming is creating a new Garden of Eden, as Greenland becomes a jungle."
Missing the point. The guy quoted, who wasn't "arguing" with anyone, was simply observing that in his part of the world, rising temperatures are a positive thing. If you want an argument, it's this:
it's very possible that the warming we now see is simply a natural process with global winners and losers. If so, our trying to tinker with the environment may also have unknown consequences. There's an explanation as to how global warming might be caused by human activity but there's no evidence supporting it thus far.
"We've got a guy stating as a fact that Noah's ark has been found."
An article was posted about some archaeologists who believe, with qualification, that they may have found it. No one stated anything as a fact.
"It's quite interesting watching them assert and justify and rationalize"
Yes, facinating. How would that be any different from the regular TTF posts which "assert and justify and rationalize"?
"and, oh yes, call people names."
Good heavens. TTF would never do something like that.
Dang it. That last one was from H.A.
Here's an interesting question:
Why can't stem cells found in all adult human bodies be used for research? Why is it necessary to create and kill embryos?
H.A.
There are states who are putting a bunch of money into this but there efforts are slowed down considerably by WARF, the owners of a broadly worded patent on methods of researching embryonic stem cells. They are currently fighting to get a huge royalty payment from the state of California which is funding research.
The Federal government is not the problem.
Quadruple Lutz strikes again. You must get so dizzy from all that spinnning.
The proposed federal legislation would allow research on stem cells donated by couples who have completed in vitro fertilization and no longer need their remaining frozen embryos. Rather than throwing these unwanted embryos away, some parents prefer to donate them to science in the hope that human suffering will be reduced.
But you go ahead and *spin* that it is "necessary to create" embryos when in truth, the proposed federal stem cell legislation is to utilize existing embryos that were going to be destroyed.
"The proposed federal legislation would allow research on stem cells donated by couples who have completed in vitro fertilization and no longer need their remaining frozen embryos. Rather than throwing these unwanted embryos away, some parents prefer to donate them to science in the hope that human suffering will be reduced."
How many extras kids are usually thrown away in any given in vitro procedure?
“ New science” What new science there is no new science being reported. If you know of some please give a source i.e., a medical journal or scientific paper. The question that I would like answered is why we are injecting mice with human embryonic stem cells. It would make more since to inject mice with mice embryonic cells stem cells. We are decades away from human testing. We are decades away if we ever come up with a way of stabilizing embryonic stem cells. This reminds me of the fetal tissue controversy. Fetal tissue was supposed to cure everything. China was going to get ahead of us. Now it is a dead issue. I am willing to bet that embryonic stem cells are going the same way. Since everyone has abandoned it financially. So now they want the federal government to pay for it. No one is putting a dime of his or her money in it. Fools.
I've wondered why there are so many conservative, and some very conservative, posters on this blog. There are a number of liberal (though not many very liveral) posters on the blog. Why is that? Is it because we all need someone to talk to, and don't always want just to talk to people we agree with? Or is it because we enjoy feeling smarter than other people?
rrjr
I know sometimes I feel "unclean" after talking with these people. Who would actually want to discuss Anne Colter's opinion about evolution? Uck!
Jim writes,
The "culture of life" supports torture and sexual humiliation, allows genocides to continue uninterrupted, forces women to undergo abortions in the Mariana Islands, and actively promotes killing brown-skinned foreigners by the tens of thousands, never mind the thousands of American lives lost --
Wow, what an idictment...now if it were only remotely true.
In the interest of brevity I will take the first and last points.
The first...support of torture. I don't support torture, and I suspect it will be tough to find many that do. Still, when dealing with unlawful enemy combatants (not only are they unlawful, worse still, IMO, is that they are cowards since they will not don a uniform...oh, yeah, that's right, they don't fight for any country, but rather for an ideologically perverse and evil version of a religion) the US will treat them the best that is possible, but they do NOT qualify for the treatment as described by the Geneva Conventions. If they want that sort of treatment then they will need to follow the rules of war (and they are spelled out).
The last point..."killing brown-skinned foreigners by the tens of thousands"...perhaps you might give consideration to what New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins has to say. I was listening to the NPR show Fresh Air (with Terry Gross) Tuesday early evening, and I was startled to hear him say that the Sunni's have come to the reluctant conclusion that only the US can keep them from being slaughtered by the Shia majority in Iraq.
Oh, and btw, as regards genocide...conservatives hold the people who commit evil responsible. Ask yourself, if the United Nations is such effective force for good, why haven't they stopped the genocide? Could it be that UN troops are too busy committing rape in other African countries?
but you try to help sick people by growing some embryonic cells, and you got a fight on your hands.
Jim...did you know that you started life as an embryo? I did too...as has every human now alive.
Most Americans see how backwards this is. Most of us would rather have cures for terrible diseases and risk violating some technical theological ruling regarding the instant that life begins.
Goodness Jim, this is not rocket science and it is not some "technical theological ruling". No, this is about MEANS and ENDS. Simple question: with regards to the question of LIFE, do you believe that humankind ought to be regarded as an END in themselves, or as a MEANS to an end? No theology here...just simple human ethics.
Jim writes,
Back to our story:
"This is a vote that millions of Americans are watching," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. "They can't understand why America for the last five years has shut down medical research that promises hope."
This is factually incorrect. Research at the State level (as in California and a few other States) and in the private sector continues. There is NO ban on embryonic research (and anyone that asserts that is either lying or ignorant of the facts); the ban is on FEDERAL FUNDING only.
What amazes me is that few have stopped for a moment to consider why it is that venture capital has not flooded an area of medical research that is so promising...anyone ever wondered about that??? Could it be that research to date has shown little promise of a "pay off"?
Look, my maternal grandmother, of blessed memory, was ravaged by AZ before it finally took her life. I believe the march of science and medical technology will inevitably find a way to slow, stop, and eventually prevent AZ, as well as many other diseases. And that is why this issue is so emotional for so many people.
At present though, the steady drumbeat from the Party of Death would have many (falsely) believe that human ethics are as relative as morality, and that we can use some members of humankind for the benefit of others. And best of all...we can accomplish this without any stain on our humanity.
Don't believe it for a moment...I will continue to affirm that we ought to LOVE people and USE things. If we reverse that equation, take away protective measures, we face the very real possibility of losing that part that distinguishes us most - our humanity. This, and not ad hominem arguments, is what matters most.
And while I realize that this is not a forum favorable toward revealed religion, I think a verse of scripture does eloquently capture this issue,
Matthew 16: 26
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
A question of those eager to destroy life with the rationale of saving life (gee, sounds a tad like the explanation during the Vietnam War that we had to destroy villages to "save" them).
Read this week's story in Time on this. They believe Bush's veto won't slow any research because "science has moved past the politics". Apparently, scientists now believe that stem cells found throughout the adult human body have the same flexibility as embryonic stem cells.
Sounds like another attempt by the element of our society that is continually trying to score a victory for science over morality. We've seen what happens in the past when science is considered more important than ethics. Writers and poets warned us before that. When will we ever learn?
H.A.
It sounds like Orin would rather throw away leftover embryos from IV procedures rather than harvest stem cells from them. I disagree. I think stem cells should be harvested from embryos that parents donate for research. It is true that each of us began as an embryo but it is also true that millions of embryos every year are lost and never born. If there's a chance that medical treatments can be salvaged from such loss, I wholeheartedly support such research.
I agree with Mikey Weinstein from the Washington Post article Orin cited the other day. The problem isn't Christianity vs. other religions. The problem is overly agressive evangelicals who want to force all Americans to hold their questionable moral views.
Daisy
"The problem is overly agressive evangelicals who want to force all Americans to hold their questionable moral views."
No, Daisy. The problem is politics and liberals desperately trying to find an issue. Adult stem cell research is more advanced and, if the research leads to breakthroughs, will be available in an ethically agreeable manner. Yesterday, the Senate rejected a bill to encourage adult stem cell research even though there is a greater chance of developing medical treatments from such research. Problem is, they think they have a political winner and nothing's going to stop it. Here's the story that will come out in the fall campaign:
"But in a surprise victory for embryonic stem cell supporters, the House defeated a second bill that would have encouraged stem cell research from sources other than embryos."
H.A.
Daisy writes,
It sounds like Orin would rather throw away leftover embryos from IV procedures rather than harvest stem cells from them.
Correct, though I would prefer that they be disposed of in a way that recognizes the potential that will never be realized.
I disagree.
Fair enough. I realize that the position I hold is not easy to explain or understand for some.
I think stem cells should be harvested from embryos that parents donate for research. It is true that each of us began as an embryo but it is also true that millions of embryos every year are lost and never born.
And therein is the (dare I say it?...ok, I will) moral and ethical distinction. It is true that untold millions are lost and never born for any number of reasons...from not properly implanting in the uterine wall to simply being a "left over" from an IV process. It is entirely a different thing to then say, "well, we're throwing these out anyways...why don't we use these embryos to see if we can find a cure and in the process we will have to destroy these embryos". It is one thing to have an embryo destroyed naturally as a result of the processes involved in the creation of new life, and quite the other to set out with the purpose of destroying life with the purpose of possibly helping others.
If there's a chance that medical treatments can be salvaged from such loss, I wholeheartedly support such research.
Well, that is what bwe are really talking here...a "chance" because at present for all the false hopes and media hype, not a single medical therapy is even remotely ready for even testing.
I agree with Mikey Weinstein from the Washington Post article Orin cited the other day.
Mr. Weinstein is tilting at windmills...are some Christians obnoxious? You bet. Then again so are the likes of Fmr. Ambassador Joe Wilson, his wife, Ms. Valerie Plame and their lawsuit which has no merit and is ONLY intended to be a political thorn in the side of Republicans in the Fall elections.
The problem isn't Christianity vs. other religions. The problem is overly agressive evangelicals who want to force all Americans to hold their questionable moral views.
Though I know that ESCR supporters are attempting to spin their efforts to the media, and hence the public, as a conflict of science versus religion (or theology; take your pick), nothing could be further from the truth. The moment an egg and sperm unite, they combine to form a never to be duplicated DNA that if successful has the potential to become another member of humankind. To use the rationalization (since that is what it is) that these are embryos that will just be thrown away anyhow, so why not USE them to further medical progress, is to ignore what this social attitude will do to us. Go ahead...use these embryos for medical "progress", but please don't be surprised when it coarsens the over all attitude of a majority of your fellow citizens.
The old canard of "well, you can't legislate morality" is as tired as it is untrue. Legislatures do it all the time...here in Colorado, our state legislature enacted a law that went into effect the first of this month, prohibiting smoking in nearly all public places. That is a moral POV...
H.A. writes,
"The problem is overly agressive evangelicals who want to force all Americans to hold their questionable moral views."
No, Daisy. The problem is politics and liberals desperately trying to find an issue. Adult stem cell research is more advanced and, if the research leads to breakthroughs, will be available in an ethically agreeable manner. Yesterday, the Senate rejected a bill to encourage adult stem cell research even though there is a greater chance of developing medical treatments from such research. Problem is, they think they have a political winner and nothing's going to stop it. Here's the story that will come out in the fall campaign:
"But in a surprise victory for embryonic stem cell supporters, the House defeated a second bill that would have encouraged stem cell research from sources other than embryos."
Really the question that ought to be asked is this: what limits will be placed on such an ethically dubious project, and why? Where will the line be drawn? How about a 12 week old fetus? Why draw the line at an embryo (other than it does not look human) when medical science tells us that we can get any number of cures, if only we will allow the harvesting of 12 week old fetuses (that are going to be aborted anyhow, since the women in question signed "intention to abort" medical forms)?
The question, to repeat myself one last time here, is an ethical, not theological, one.
Global warming is happening- not by natural or good means. You can try to spin bull on other people but I work with real scientists- who work in the Arctic and Antarctic and the melting there is real and in no way good. You go right ahead believing nonsense and the popular media- I'll believe the well-educated and published scientists I know. Because someone thinks something good personally came to him out of a worldwide problem -doesn't make it good. If the big one hits, someone in Nevada may be happy with oceanfront property but most people will agree it is a disaster
"You go right ahead believing nonsense and the popular media- I'll believe the well-educated and published scientists I know."
Andrea, the popular media is all signed on for the global catastrophe bandwagon. The point is, the atmosphere has warmed up before, less than a thousand years ago it was much hotter, and the result was not catastrophe and, indeed, at the end of it was the Renaissance. If it is natural and we try to alter it, the consequences may be unforseen. When I was a youth, the alarmist scientists were trying to imply that we were on the verge of a new Ice Age. So we all tried to get souped up Challengers and Mustangs and heat things up as much as possible- and this is the thanks we get!
H.A.
HA said "If it is natural and we try to alter it, the consequences may be unforseen."
That's precisely the point. Since the Industrial Revolution, we have altered the chemistry of the air, land, and water here on Earth. We see consequences of man's environmental alterations all over Earth, such as those HA noted in Greenland and those Andrea noted at the poles.
We see the consequences of man's alterations to the environment in our food supply too. The FDA has warned children and pregnant women to limit their consumption of tuna fish because of the high levels of mercury.
Christine
Wow, I haven't checked in here for months and months and then I have a few spare minutes waiting so I say, let me see what old Jimbo and his crowd is up to (if anything) and you know what? My skin is crawling. You never change Jim -- you always take the extreme liberal, relativist position on most any subject and then back it up by saying 'most people' and for good measure throw a few carpet bombs about pro-life people and well, you are a sick lot. Orrin R.: God bless you for sticking with 'em and challenging them at every turn in your loving, patient way. You are a better person than I. See you nuts at TTF around.
Post a Comment
<< Home