News-Record.com

"To me this quote embodies a glaring inconsistency — that it is acceptable to deny the right to life of a young human being in order to prolong the life of or possibly cure an ailing older human."

There are more than enough "glaring inconsistencties" to go around these days. In Iraq, we have been denying the "right to life" of thousands of human beings, young and old, "good" and "evil," innocent and guilty, in order to achieve our goals there (whatever they are), and we haven't heard so much as a peep of objection from the "pro-life" crowd.

Why might that be? Is the goal of ending suffering in Iraq or "bringing freedom" there so much more vital than saving the lives of the tens of thousands that have died? If that's the case, why isn't ending other human suffering from disease more important than saving the lives of frozen embryos that have virtually no chance of ever going through and surviving the process of gestation?

I also hear a lot of religious rhetoric surrounding this issue. I don't see the problem, actually. Don't most of the people who object to the disposal of frozen embryos believe that whatever "soul" they have will end up in heaven? Sounds like something that should make folks happy to me.

So the main point here is that all of the objections over stem cells doesn't appear to reallly hold much water. It makes me wonder whether the true reason for this fight might actually lie somewhere else.

Woke up with one nasty headache, probably won't type much this morning but I have to ask: didn't we just have this discussion?

P.S. I tried to call in sick but one of the major disadvantages of being self employed is that I never fall for my lame excuses to get out of working. You can count on one thing, if I ever make it to retirement I'm going to tell myself exactly what I think about me.

Slave driving bastard.

... yea, lot's of redundency. I like it when new players share new perspectives that gives me something to think about and research.

I'm with you on that JDR.

Perhaps someone can answer some questions for me. What happens to the embryos targeted for stem cell research? Are they brought to term or simply destroyed? If it is the latter, then how is that any better than using them to help someone else live?

I think the major moral hangup is whether or not we are creating life for the sole purpose of destroying it.

Now, having said that, if that is the issue then perhaps the same people that are against this research should also be against other procedures that do the same thing. (someone mentioned fertility treatments yesterday).

I can understand that line of thought.

I'm no scientist but I keep hearing that adult stem-cells and umbilical cord stem-cells can achieve the same thing. If that is the case, I wonder if the main reason for wanting embryonic stem cells is money.

"I keep hearing that adult stem-cells and umbilical cord stem-cells can achieve the same thing."

My understanding is they appear to be able in certain cases, and not so in other. What's better: Aluminum, Steel, or Fiberglas? Depends.

Slightly off task .. I have a preference for Tantalum - an incredible useful metal that was impractical until the Space Program - paid for by our tax dollars - funded the technology to work the element into more than light bulb filaments. All tax dollars are not bad.

NP,

I think one point needs clarification. Adult stem cells, umbilical cord cells, and embryonic cells are not the same. They each have unique qualities and could produce medical breakthroughs, but as I understand it, the embryonic research is the one that holds the most promise.

Furthermore, I find it irresponsible of the administration and the LTE writer to pretend that these are the same, because this tactic clouds the facts.

Here's my take on the whole thing (and I know you are all waiting anxiously): IF the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, then what difference should it make to the people with moral objections whether the embryos are destroyed by research, or destroyed by throwing away. The standard answer: "we do not believe in destroying life to preserve another life" does not address my question.

And as an aside, there are over 400,000 frozen embryos in the country, and only about 120 "snowflake" children have been born. So my observation is that these people who are so adamant about preserving these 400,000 live need to get busy implanting themselves. Unless I am missing something, to let these embryos remain frozen is the same as destroying them.

JDR,

Way off topic, but I thought of you when
I read a few weeks ago about the challenge to the lightbulb manufacturers to come up with a more energy efficient product. I was not aware that incandescent bulbs only convert 5% of the energy used to power them into light, and flourescents are not much better (15-20%?). Is that true? Apparently a big potential breakthrough in energy conservation is the use of lights that convert a much higher proportion of energy into light (like stadium lights). Do you have any insight on the impact of this?

Sorry to everyone for getting off topic, but I've been weaiting for two weeks for a letter about light bulbs and there hasn't been one. Thanks for your patience.

"I think the major moral hangup is whether or not we are creating life for the sole purpose of destroying it."

That's nowhere near the case. The embryos that researchers would use are "leftovers" from earlier fertility treatments. They were created initially to help couples have children. Those that are left over, never to be used for that original purpose, would instead be used for the purpose of helping us learn how to cure some of the worst physical problems we face. I'm not aware of any activity that creates "only to destroy."

Nemo's point about the creation for the purpose of destruction is dead-on. There was another law signed by Bush on the same day as his veto that disallowed the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them for research (called "fetal farming"). The vote in the Senate was 98-0. The measure is viewed as symbolic, as no one is known to actually conduct or advocate this practice.

Isn't it bothersome that there is an MD in Asheboro who either cannot read a simple English sentence or who does so and then puts his own irrelevant and contradictory spin on the sentence's meaning? How well can such a doctor hear what his patients are telling him about symptoms, health history, &c?
Haven’t most tyrants and dictators followed their own consciences - to their follower's and nation's ruin? When one's conscience has proven to mislead, it's foolish to continue the course.

Call my cynical, but I think the whole show was for political purposes...as was the flag burning, gay marriage ban, etc. Just got to appease those folks who know what is important to them. Let's not discuss the real issues.

"only about 120 "snowflake" children have been born."

That's one thing I don't quite understand here- "snowflake children". WTF? There are plenty of kids up for adoption these days. Kids that are bouncing from foster home to foster home or in orphanages that could use a good, solid home. A loving home. A REAL home.

Somehow they're not good enough. How about that.

Politics and politicians are SUPPOSED to do what is important to their constituents. We vote them in office, so they should be doing what we want them to. If stem-cell research is the important topic, then their attention to this matter is required, because they work for us.

Judging from the debate on these forums, and the potential benefits and the strong opposition to this issue, I think the government should involve itself. If they don't go the way you want them to, hold them accountable for their decisions.

The same goes for flag burning and gay marriage. DD has been harping on this for along time, and now you are as well, Carol. You may not think that these are important issues, but many would disagree. The political process is supposed to be used by us to settle these issues. That is what laws are for. Are there other, more pressing concerns, such as Iraq? Perhaps. But should Congress be able to do more than one thing at once? I certainly hope so. That is like the Police saying that, until they have solved all the murders in the State, they will not investigate any housebreakings, as murders are more important that housebreakings. Luckily, they are able to do more than just one thing simultaneously.

Swanks:

I agree ".. politicians are SUPPOSED to do what is important to their constituents." ... but that does not always mean they do what their constituents tell them to do.

It's te difference between a lacky - which imho they're not suppose to be, and a leader - ont that sees what's important to their constituents, regardless of popularity We've not seen too many leaders ....

Swanks:

Clarify what you're saying. Who is his constituency? If over 75% of the US is in favor of embryoninc stem cell research, should Bush sign the veto? From what you're saying, he shouldn't, because surely some of the 75% voted for him. But then should he take a poll for every issue? Clinton was crucified as a guy who wouldn't take a vacation without checking the poll data first for the destination. And while Bush does follow poll data before making his moves, I don't think it is especially healthy. If this is not what you are suggesting, please clarify.

What I am saying, Howie G, (or perhaps what I am trying to say) is that the government should take some action on it. This is a concern of a lot of people, therefore the government is, in my opinion, obligated to take some action and not just ignore it. We vote them into office, so they should concern themselves with the topics that concern us.

Just as JDR says, however, the actions taken by Congress or the Presidency should not necessarily mirror the public opinion. But action should be taken. I think that some of the early civil rights legislations were greated with an enormous amount of bad public opinion, but they were pushed through anyway. And we now see what a good thing that was. When the government does respond to an issue, it isn't necessarily because they are playing politics, but that they should concern themselves with the issues of the day.

I was posting this in response to the assertions of some that many of the things they have done are just for show and as a diversion to "real" issues. I don't think so. These are issues that are important to a lot of people and action needs to be taken. If it is an action that we cannot abide by, then there are steps to rectify it.

In no post of mine have I stated what Bush or any member of Congress should do about stem cells, only that they should do something, as they are our leaders. If we become angry at what they do, then we still have political recourse to change things.

I have lost faith in "political recourse"

Thanks, Swanks. Now I get it (sometimes I need some 'splainin'. I see your point and it makes sense.

This letter did not warrant much in the way of discussion. The letter writer may believe it, but most folks don't. Ask Nancy Reagan who the Gipper would feel about it.

DementedDeacon --

I think you've got the wrong former First Lady if you want to ask the question about who her husband would feel. Ask Hillary, if you've got time to read the long answer.

Sorry for my disjointed post above.

The letter writer should ask Nancy Reagan about Stem Cell research. Better yet, ask Ron Reagan.

Those conservatives who hold Ronald Reagan up as an example should listen to his widow and family on Stem Cell Research. For the "life" of me, I cannot understand how anyone would not want to use, something that is going to be destroyed anyway, for saving lives. And they call themselves....PRO life?

NicDanger,
If she only knew all the people her husband would feel!

If Dr. Klostermyer thinks Bush vetoed this for reasons other than politics, I sure would not want him to be MY doctor.

If he were Doc Klostermyer were female, I'm sure she'd fall for the old, "Can I put my finger in your navel?" trick.

Punchline:
"Hey! That's not my navel!"

And that ain't my finger!

Denzien,

While I think it is noble to adopt children, I don't think it is your or my right to tell people what children they should raise or judge them for wanting to have their own. If they want to have their own children and raise them from day one, that is their call. Even if it means getting help from fertility doctors.

And as far as their being plenty of children to adopt, that depends on your situation. My wife and I had thought about adopting and we looked at several adoption services.

First, they were quite expensive. Second, the children that were available were either nearly grown, had serious birth defects that we could not afford to handle, or had some serious emotional issues.

We could have gone out of the country to adopt children but that was WAY more than we could afford. We went into the adoption process hopeful, but came away quite discouraged.

I'm all for adoption and foster-parenting, but quite frankly it sometimes isn't feasible for average folks with average means. Beyond that, a person might actually like themselves and their spouse enough to have a product that reflects each other.