His First Veto

George Bush vetoes the stem cell bill. The Times kicked the issues around on Wednesday morning (Expected to Veto, Qualified Boon) and managed to quote some people from both sides.

I had supported the Frist rebellion a year ago ("weakly"), so I guess I am disappointed by the veto (also weakly).  Just repeating myself here:

I thought the Federalist approach that was developing, with different states funding research, was promising (or not). And, although conducting the research under nationally agreed Federal rules and funding may be more efficient, efficiency is not the only goal of a democracy - we also support messy compromises.

I'm a bit surprised that the Bush position has held for five years; I would be stunned if it held through the next Administration.

Comments

[JM Hanes]

From the WaPo:

Looking at the children around him, [Bush] said to loud applause, “These boys and girls are not spare parts.”

Not that anybody, anywhere, has ever said they were. I can certainly understand why he might have nixed surrounding himself with petrie dishes though.

[Syl]

JM Hanes

LOL

That would make a great cartoon, wouldn't it?

[SteveMG]

I keep returning to Walker Percy.

E.g.,
I'm trying to figure out what it means to live in a world where science is triumphant, where we all recognize that there are "experts" for all of our problems.

He doesn't provide, for me, many answers. But he sure did ask the right questions.

SMG

[Cecil Turner]

Well, I mostly agree with the veto, though I think it's a close call. If the need for new strains were more compelling or the benefits more tangible, I think he'd have a hard time sustaining it. But it's a slippery slope and I think going slow is the right answer.

On the process side, I'm delighted he finally vetoed something. (Wish it'd been a spending bill, though . . . )

[richard mcenroe]

When they come for your corneas after you run that red light, don't come crying to me.

It's scary to think we're living in a Larry Niven novel.

[Rick Ballard]

He kept another clear promise. For those wishing passage - thirty months isn't long to wait and the odds of a weathervane being hired for the job are very good. The bill can be dusted off and whoever is straddling the fence in the Ocal Office will find a way to compromise their principles if they have to.

[Stormy70]

He did veto a spending bill. This should not be funded federally by tax dollars. Any citizen can contribute money to private research centers. This was just another earmark, in my opinion.

[Annoying Old Guy]

To echo Stormy, when did the federal government not funding something become a "ban"?

As for claims of politicizing science, that bridge was crossed when the government became the major source of funding. You take money from politicians, you're politicized.

[Barney Frank]

I can't speak for others, but I'm certainly glad my parents valued my life enough not to put me through a vegematic, whether when I was in short pants or still petrie dish size.
What person who has made it out the birth canal wishes they had instead been diced and sliced for tiny, incremental and at this point merely theoretical advances of science? Any hands?
So why, if our embryonic lives were valuable enough we wouldn't have wanted them snuffed out, should we be willing to snuff out others?
Seems a strange moral argument to me.

[boris]

This is another issue that's not what it's really about.

The logic that applies to embryo research also applies to abortion fetus harvesting.

If someone accidently gets pregnant and does not want a child, should they choose an early term before the fetus acquires a nervous system, or wait for late term when the fetus organs can be harvested for about $100,000.

People who don't themselves find that repugnent shouldn't be suprised most do.

[Freaknik]

So now that we're not going to do research with these spare - IVF embryos- what is going to happen to them?

[ordi]

I heard on FNC that by 2020 this research area will be a 50 BILLION dollar PRIVATE industry. Some of the companies do the research are Jonhson & Johnson and GM.

[Cecil Turner]

It's scary to think we're living in a Larry Niven novel.

Another fan of Gil "The Arm" Hamilton, I take it?

So now that we're not going to do research with these spare - IVF embryos- what is going to happen to them?

I expect the vast majority will be discarded/destroyed. Which is the main reason this is a close call. The propensity for abuse (ranging from intentional creation of excess embryos to a black market human spare parts industry a la Niven) is the main reason the veto is correct. IMHO.

[clarice]

Given the misrepresentations about what the legislation means, how far the research has gone, and the clear attempt to paint the President's opposition as idiotic fundamentalism, I'm less inclined to dispute his call.
NRO has a decent piece up today.
Hockum

About a year ago Krauthammer had one , too. And he does know what he's talking about (He's a psychiatrist with a far firmer grasp of medical research than any other pundit.)

[richard mcenroe]

Have any of the claims for IVF stem cells panned out yet? I know adult stem cell research has made some interesting progress, but that doesn't get NARAL all squishy...

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Oh, jeez.

See, this is the way it always goes. First I make myself unpopular with the Tim Lamberts by insisting that their science be scientific, and now I'm going to make myself unpopular with some others by doing the same thing.

Freaknik, the answer is that IVF embryos are usually at about the 8 to 16 cell --- blastocyst --- stage of development, and even frozen in liquid nitrogen, they've got a limited shelf life. After a few years, if they're not donated by the parents, they are thrown out. Since most IVF procedures get 5-10 blastocysts for every successful pregnancy, there's a fair number of them.

My own opinion is that if I were President, I'd have signed the bill. I am, however, not the president (you all may have noticed.) I think the most striking thing about this is that it shows just what a peculiar politician George W is, yet again: he believes in relatively liberal treatment of immigrants, and continues to say so even when it loses him conservatives; he believes there's a moral issue with using IVF blastocysts, and even when he's being pushed by his own party as well as liberals, he vetoes.

People would be surprised by GWB much less often if then assumed he actually means what he's saying.

That said, however, let's not get silly in the argument. Using spare blastocysts isn't setting up organlegging; that's much more like what's going on in China. If you want to prevent that, you should be looking for ways to do tissue engineering and otherwise to make new parts instead of finding fresh spares. That means understanding how tissue differentiation happens, and how to get human pluripotent stem cells ("embryonic stem cells") is a big part of that.

I don't know how to deal with the theological issue --- I don't lean that way theologically at all, so the whole discussion of an embryo being Life just confuses me. I guess, then, the egg and spermatozoans aren't Life, because they can't develop independently ... except of course a blastocyst can't develop independently either. And, assuming that we found a way to dedifferentiate adult cells into pluripotent blastocystic stem cells, those wouldn't be Life either ... except that those are the same cells as in that other blastocyst, and could be induced to develop just like a normal blastocyst.

Then there's a business about "snowflake children" --- where in the world did they get that name? everyone seemed to have heard it but me until today --- and how every one of them came from a blastocyst that might otherwise have been discarded. But then ... it turns out that something upwards of 20 percent of all normally fertilized in vivo blastocysts are "discarded" too. God sure is a fussbudget sometimes: discarding some, not discarding others, unable to control which ones get implanted from Petri dishes but able to decide with the in vivo ones....

Now, from my point of view, seeing as thousands of blastocysts get discarded anyway, every year, and seeing as how using only 60 of the ones that will otherwise be discarded, or spoil would double, or treble, or quintuple the number of cell lines available for experimentation (depending on some specifics of the kind of experimentation and such), I've got to say, I don't find the moral issue all that tough. After all, I don't worry about transplanting organs from people who die accidentally --- hell, I signed that spot on my drivers license. If I'm not using my kidneys, I'd be happy for someone else to get some use out of them.

But then what's the distinction between using those kidneys, and using a blastocyst that isn't going to be implanted? how many angels are going to dance on that pin head?

In any case, yes, Richard, there are several things that have worked successfully as therapeutic treatments using embryonic pluripotent stem cells. In rats. Nothing in humans yet.

Wanna guess why?

[Rick Ballard]

Well argued, Charlie. I don't know why anyone would take offense with rational argument. A theological argument is trumping science - for the moment.

I also agree that people should not be surprised when the President does what he says he will do. We'll see another weathervane soon enough.

[Bob]

Charlie, I don't think anybody refutes the potential of Embryonic Stem Cells. And as mentioned by others, this is NOT A BAN! The only question is who should fund it. Look at what we got for all our global warming dollars.... a hockey stick prediction based on junk science. Unfortunately our government can't do much of anything right - they can barely manage themselves, let alone science that is this controversial. Look at all the money spent on cloning! 10 years later and nothing really to show for it. I'm tired of all the whining from these scientist - let these so called scientists get their funding privately! And I love how they drag out Michael J. Fox as their reason for going ahead. An estimated 90,000 people die each year in our Hospitals from disease and infections they've acquired during their visits - this is more than AIDS and Breast Cancer combined. That's where I expect my government to spend my Tax Dollars - not on a long-shot hope to cure Fox someday! Would it be nice, of course, but I don't believe it should be our governments priority.

[Cecil Turner]

I've got to say, I don't find the moral issue all that tough. After all, I don't worry about transplanting organs from people who die accidentally . . .

I'd say that's a rather far cry from growing embryos with the intent of harvesting cells/organs/whatever. It's especially troubling if there is any chance the embryos could be implanted (i.e., "snowflake babies") . . . which of course exists for any useful blastocyst/embryo. I'd also note a distinction between private decisions made individually by citizens, and government (or government-funded) programs. And while I'd agree it's a long way from organlegging, I find it a useful reductio exercise, as most good science fiction is.

[boris]

agree it's a long way from organlegging, I find it a useful reductio exercise

Yes, if the benefit is clear and they're going to be discarded anyway what's the problem? Apply the logic to accidental pregnancy, delay the abortion until the fetus organs are valuable enough to pay for college tuition. Clear benefit. Discarded anyway. What's the problem?

Rick,

The scientists vs religious argument won't wash.

[ed]

Hmmm.

Since we're still talking about science and how great scientists all are:

1. Is eating red meat bad for you this week or is it healthy again?

2. No offense to anybody but I'm frankly unimpressed by research that *requires* federal funding because private investors don't want any part of it.

3. I can't help but think that this issue of embryonic stem cells has more to do with the politics of abortion than anything else. The primary reason for opposing abortion for many is that it devalues human life. Interestingly enough the devaluation of human life is *required* when promoting embryonic stem cell research.

4. Again no offense to anybody but frankly the real goal should be the research into adult stem cell technology, where private funding has been very good. This technology offers the hope of repairing the human body without the implantation of foreign tissue.

In case anybody hasn't noticed, the anti-rejection drugs that you'd be forced to take every single day of your remaining life if you were treated with embryonic stem cells are very toxic. The requirement for taking these drugs is at 8am & 8pm, with leeway of no more than 15 minutes *maximum*. The reason for this is that the dosage of these drugs is reduced to the absolute minimum because they are so toxic.

So investing a lot of effort into a therapy that would require patients to poison themselves is rather absurd.

5. On the moral issue: I have ESRD, i.e. my kidneys are non-functional, and I'm on the transplant list. If I had a choice between dying or being cured with tissue harvested from embryo, I'll take death thank you.

Life is sweet, but all men die. I'd rather die than having that crime on my soul.

[ed]

Hmmm.

Oh in case this question comes up; I'm not Christian.

[Rick Ballard]

Boris,

When the President made this statement in 2001:

"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist" I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines " where the life and death decision has already been made", This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research" without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life."

He was informed by a theological understanding of the "moral line". IOW - he wasn't speaking of moral relativism or any of its utilitarian cousins.

He established The President's Council on Bioethics as a result of that initial decision and various scientists involved have resigned when they finally came to the understanding that the President was not malleable with respect to principle.

I support the President's decision - I was just pointing out the we will have another very malleable President in the near future if the current crop of contenders is any indication.

[Florence Schmieg]

I am a molecular biologist. I love science. And I understand the motives of scientists. They want to keep their research grants going-it's their profession. So I suggest that we all show the same level of skepticism towards their claims of future cures from this research as we would show towards statements from oil companies, or HMOs, or drug companies. Previously, gene therapy was supposed to lead to such cures. It has not happened. And that's my biggest beef with all of this: The exploitation of poor suffering patients who are led to believe that some miracle is just around the corner; the draining of limited research funding from approaches already working towards this "trendy" line of research; the politicians who place false hopes to gain advantage. Let the private sector fund until we see if anything actually results from this work. We will know if that money dries up over time: private funds are usually from entrepeneurs who won't continue throwing money away if nothing good happens.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Ed, on your points:

1. Familiar with the term "red herring"?

2. You probably have a point, abstractly. Practically, in the current environment, basic research mostly doesn't get done unless it's funded by the Feds. This, I think, is a consequence of the post-Sputnik drive for research. If you have a solution for the problem, I'd be interested to hear it, but in the mean time, i suggest coping with reality is generally a better way of dealing with issues.

3. You're begging the question. Specifically, you start out with the --- essentially theological --- assumption that an embryo/blastocyst is "human life" in some sense that eggs, sperm, unimplanted blastocysts, or dedifferentiated blastocystic pluripotent stem cells aren't.

4. Wrong. First of all, it's unlikely we can get to some of the most important treatments without understanding differentiation and the ability to get pluripotent cells. Second, stem cells aren't handled by the immune system the same way macroscopic differentiated tissue is. It isn't true that all stem cell treatments would require immunosuppressant treatment.

5. You've got my sympathy about the ESRD: I saw a lot of that in med school. There's nothing fun about any disease that starts with the phrase "end stage". And good luck on the transplant list.

Um, but -- you say "So investing a lot of effort into a therapy that would require patients to poison themselves is rather absurd." I've got to admit I'm a little worried: have your doctors not told you that if you get a transplant --- assuming no hitherto-undiscovered identical twins --- you're going to have to take that immunosuppressant therapy you describe as "poisoning yourself"?

In any case, I completely respect your right to make that choice. For yourself.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Florence, I agree with you completely on the exploitation issue: Edwards' exploitation of people like Chris Reeves, and the use of people with Parkinson's or type I diabetes, is a sleazy maneuver worthy of a shyster trial lawyer. Although the collection of a bunch of snowflake children on the other side seems pretty exploitative as well.

Nor is it 100 percent certain that pluripotent stem cells will do everything people have argued for. (And see Ed's point about research funding: in the political game of science, being able to point to some wonder that could come out of it, the more wonderful the better, is part of getting funding, and getting funding is the way you get jobs. This leads to some hyperbole.)

But the fact remains that the one kind of research that is 100 percent certain not to produce wonders is research that doesn't get done.

[boris]

I support the President's decision

And I support the research but view the opposition to it differently.

There are plenty of good reasons for 6yr olds to obey their parents and treat others with consideration that have absolutely nothing to do with Santa's list of who's naughty or nice.

Just because some parent might use Santa's list as a reason to behave does in no way invalididate the concepts of obeying and consideration for others. It just that a 6yr old might not be open to arguments based on game theory, evolutionary psychology and the prisoner's dilema.

[Rick Ballard]

Sure, there are many very sophisticated arguments which can be made ad nauseum. Don't let his own words slow you down as to what informed his decision. The full rationale is fairly well developed at the Bioethics site and it does contain reference to the factors which you mention.

It's still reducible.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

@ Charlie

@1. "red herring"

Actually that was a joke.

@2. "If you have a solution for the problem"

Funny there was plenty of private funding for the human genome research. There's plenty of venture capital for adult stem cell research. There's plenty of private funding for cord blood research.

It's just embryonic stem cell research that's coming up dry. Perhaps it's the incredibly high incidence of malignant tumors in research subjects that's the cause.

As for a solution to the problem? Well, patents. Which already exist and already drives private research.

@3. "You're begging the question."

These aren't skin cells that have flaked off. These are human beings in the very first stages of existence. Of life.

There is a very clear line drawn here. That any human life is human life. The idea that the definition of a human life requires qualifiers is frankly dangerous because that's the general justification for eugenics. Which may not apply here and now, but such always seems to crop back up.

Tell me was Terri Schiavo a human being? Is being unaware of your surroundings human? Does it take intelligence to be human? Does it take specific characteristics to be human? If being genetically human isn't sufficient, then what is the criteria? And can that criteria change over time?

Modern society can be incredibly constructive. It can also be extraordinarily destructive without very clear deliniation of limits and boundries.

Declaring that a genetic human being is in fact a human being regardless of physical or mental characteristics is not a current requirement, but a future necessity.

@4. "It isn't true that all stem cell treatments would require immunosuppressant treatment."

Considering that there are as yet **NO** treatments deriving from embryonic stem cells, that's quite a statement.

@5. "You've got my sympathy about the ESRD"

*shrug* we live, we die. Not trying for sympathy btw. It's all a part of life, I'm just a little ahead of the curve.

Yes my doctors did tell me about the anti-rejection drugs. Which is why I prefer research in adult stem cell technology.

I accept the necessities of my ailment. I accept that if I were lucky enough to get a transplant that I will be slowly poisoning myself. That no matter what I've already lost more than a decade off my natural lifespan.

But that's what we have now, so why would we want to invest in technology that would require continuing this state into the future?

Frankly, and this is just a personal opinion, this nation needs adult stem cell technology. So do many other countries. The existing healthcare systems will simply be overwhelmed soon either by insufficient capacity or insufficient funding. The biggest culprit isn't the initial treatment, but the extended treatments that many ailments require.

ESRD, as an example, costs an enormous amount of money. I've paid a lot of taxes over the years, but I'm certain I've long since gotten more benefits than I've paid. In general terms, with each patient's costs being highly variable, it costs the US government about $10,000.00 USD per week to keep me alive.

No jokes about that money being wasted. :):)

We're staring down a demographic nightmare where millions of baby-boomers will be entering into the phase where they will likely end up like me. And each one will cost an additional $10,000 per week. Already most dialysis centers are at capacity or increasing capacity. Trained dialysis nurses can basically write their own tickets.

The only viable solution from a long-term care, fiscal sanity and healthcare capacity point of view is to institute treatments that can fully repair the human body without the need for additional treatments or medication.

Anything less and we will either see the healthcare system bankrupted or the biggest single die-off in human history.

6. "In any case, I completely respect your right to make that choice. For yourself."

Thanks. It's a tough choice and one I've discussed with my family and close friends. I've lived a decent life, not great but not bad. If I'm to die, then so be it. I've already come close to death about 3 times so it's hardly a surprise at this point.

Amusingly enough the most comforting thing about all this is the visions of Heaven I've had several times during moments of extremity. Were they visions created from a maddened mind? Or perhaps visions from the very brink of death?

Though I'm not a Christian, and never have been, I must say that I do feel it is the latter.

[Sue]

2. No offense to anybody but I'm frankly unimpressed by research that *requires* federal funding because private investors don't want any part of it.

Me too. If it was such a promising venture, private companies would be trying to beat the government to the punch.

[Sue]

i suggest coping with reality is generally a better way of dealing with issues.

Your reality? Okaaaaay....

Discussion over. Everyone lay down your keyboards.

[boris]

Don't let his own words

Yes, if it was just W your point would be 100%.

Since the veto was sustained by others I boldy assert other arguments may have played a part.

[maryrose]

Why is the life of Michael J. Fox more valuable than the potential life of a newborn. Michael has had 50 years already why should we sacrifice potential new life for someone who has been around for awhile. I bet our actor friends are pro-choice as well. Science doesn't trump moral values and doing what is right according to your conscience. Bush followed his conscience-it's refreshing to see that in Washington. I applaud his decision. Umbilical cord and adult stem cells are other options. Private investment will take care of stem cellresearch Michael J. Fox will get his cure in the next 5-10 years.

[boris]

I boldy assert other arguments may have played a part.

I guess that should be "boldly assert" ... although "baldly assert" works on even more levels of accuracy.

[JM Hanes]

The moral line here is neither uniformly drawn nor even universally recognized by those on the pro-life side of abortion issues. "Being pro-life also means fighting for policies that will eliminate pain and suffering," said Rep. James R. Langevin.

Exploitation is not confined to one side or the other either, whether it's hyping the potential or playing fetal heartbeats in the House, and it's hardly a sound basis for decision making one way or another. The President's decision to surround himself with embryo-adopted children is as contrived & emotionally manipulative as any Edward's appeal.

The frozen embryos at issue were, in fact, explicitly created as "spare parts" for those seeking in vitro fertilization. I don't hear anyone suggesting that such would-be parents be obliged to bring them all to actual life or that the practice of creating life in such fashion is immoral. Embryos that are subsequently discarded will be just as dead, if not deader, than those utilized in research. The moral line zig zags right around such inconvenient facts.

Apocalyptic visions of "egg farming" and a lucrative trade in embryos can be avoided easily enough making the sale of such embryotic material illegal, in much the same way we treat the "harvesting" of blood for transfusions.

Arguing that we don't need embryotic stem cells because adult stem cells will suffice or have produced more practical results to date seems quite beside the point when the subject is the very research which will ultimately make that determination possible.

Federal funding is not just relevant in terms of dollars spent. It plays a significant part in the complex fundraising matrix which determines how a great deal of private & commercial support is generated and allocated by the institutions undertaking the research. While one can argue that the Federal government shouldn't be in the business of funding research in the first place, or that the current system is far from ideal, it is either ill-informed or disingenuous to assert that the absence of an outright prohibition mitigates any serious impact on private funding as well. It's simply not true.

There are certainly legitimate ethical and practical concerns worth addressing here, but it's exceedingly difficult to do so when one is substituted for the other, as they often seem to be. Implying that thoughtful, compassionate people who favor stem cell research endorse using children for spare parts is no way to lay claim to the moral highground.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

@1 "It was a joke."

Not visibly. It was presented like an argument. Sorta.

@2 It's just embryonic stem cell research that's coming up dry.

Except it isn't.

Perhaps it's the incredibly high incidence of malignant tumors in research subjects that's the cause.

Watch out --- that's not unlikely with "adult" stem cells.

In any case, this is another red herring --- you were theoretically offering a solution for the dominance in federal funding in basic research. "Someone should fund it privately" isn't a solution.

@3. "You're begging the question."

These aren't skin cells that have flaked off. These are human beings in the very first stages of existence. Of life.

As opposed to the eggs, sperm, and dedifferentiated stem cells from adults. You're arguing by assertion. Make me an argument, not based in your religious feelings which I pretty clearly don't share, for this.

There is a very clear line drawn here.

Great. Draw it. Start with explaining to me the distinction between fully pluripotent stem cells from an "adult", and those same stem cells implanted and gestating.

That any human life is human life.

Then every unimplanted blastocyst that spoils is a murder?

The idea that the definition of a human life requires qualifiers is frankly dangerous because that's the general justification for eugenics. Which may not apply here and now, but such always seems to crop back up

Then you'd better come up with a stronger argument, hadn't you?

Save Terri Schiavo --- I'm not going chasing that red herring either.

@4. "It isn't true that all stem cell treatments would require immunosuppressant treatment."

Considering that there are as yet **NO** treatments deriving from embryonic stem cells, that's quite a statement.

Your ignorance isn't my problem. Do you want a technical explanation why?

@5 But that's what we have now, so why would we want to invest in technology that would require continuing this state into the future?

Good thing no one made that argument in the 60's, isn't it?

The only viable solution from a long-term care, fiscal sanity and healthcare capacity point of view is to institute treatments that can fully repair the human body without the need for additional treatments or medication.

You're absolutely correct. Figuring out fully pluripotent stem cells is the best approach we know of right now.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Why is the life of Michael J. Fox more valuable than the potential life of a newborn.

Another red herring. No one is talking about a newborn. We're talking about between 16 and 128 frozen cells. No sweet little babies ... unless you can't distinguish between a blastocyst and a sweet little baby, in which case you ought logically to be calling the doctors involved in IVF murderers, and the parents accessories before the fact.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Implying that thoughtful, compassionate people who favor stem cell research endorse using children for spare parts is no way to lay claim to the moral highground.

Hear, hear.

[Cecil Turner]

The President's decision to surround himself with embryo-adopted children is as contrived & emotionally manipulative as any Edward's appeal.

I thought it made the point rather well, especially when you consider how many frozen embryos there are, and how few children. Bottom line is that for each individual there is potential, but it's not very likely.

The frozen embryos at issue were, in fact, explicitly created as "spare parts" for those seeking in vitro fertilization.

Seems to me they were explicitly created as potential children, not "spare parts." And the ethical issue is whether they're available for experimentation . . . even though they could at some later date become children. So far, the ruling appears to be: "yes, but not with government funding." Seems to me like a reasonable compromise.

You're arguing by assertion.

So are you. Obviously you differ on the definition of "human life" . . . but I'm having a hard time seeing why yours is more "scientific" or otherwise superior.

[Cecil Turner]

. . . in which case you ought logically to be calling the doctors involved in IVF murderers . . .

Not seeing this one. In my experience, doctors involved in IVF work very hard to keep embryos/blastocysts viable. "Playing God" perhaps, but "murder"?

[boris]

Implying that thoughtful, compassionate people who favor stem cell research endorse using children for spare parts is no way to lay claim to the moral highground.

My my, I wonder who she's refering to here? Certainly not moi, my argument was that thoughtful, compassionate people would not endorse using children (late term fetus to be precise) for spare parts, but that the same logic applies to both situations.

Embryo's created for IVF are created with a chance for life. When they perish, they perish of "natual causes". Removing their chance deliberatly for the benefit of others is not a line that should be crossed using tax money.

Disclaimer: My tax money, fine, go ahead. Taking from others who object is very literally shoving an "alternate" morality down their throats, something most moderates seem to objuect to when it's the other way around. Claiming that this is a situation where it actually is the other way around is bogus.

[Freaknik]

Only 10% of embryos created for IVF purposes are ever implanted. The rest are eventually "discarded". Discarded is a euphemism. They are put in a standard issue medical waste bag and treated just like liposuction residue.

Or is there a big cemetery somewhere I failed to notice?

Bush and the moral champions let the cat out of the bag when they didn't seek to ban IVF procedures.

Now they're down to saying "murder" is wrong (Tony's Snow's word) but the private sector is free to murder at will. Some principles.

[Sue]

It's odd that liberal Europe seems to agree with Bush on this issue.

[Cecil Turner]

Only 10% of embryos created for IVF purposes are ever implanted.

Might want to check your terminology on this one. IVF doctors "transfer" embryos to the mother, where the majority fail to "implant". I can't find any statistics on those "discarded," but suspect most are either from non-viable embryos or after extended freezing.

Bush and the moral champions let the cat out of the bag when they didn't seek to ban IVF procedures.

I'd contend there is a significant moral difference between a procedure designed to achieve a pregnancy as opposed to a procedure designed to terminate one. Certainly it's more distinct than the line between the collection of cells and a "baby" at the magic moment it becomes one (regardless of the definition used). And if we're going to ban procedures outright, abortions come a long way before IVF.

[Barney Frank]

Charlie,

"I don't know how to deal with the theological issue --- I don't lean that way theologically at all, so the whole discussion of an embryo being Life just confuses me. I guess, then, the egg and spermatozoans aren't Life, because they can't develop independently ... except of course a blastocyst can't develop independently either.

First, this is not necessarily a theological issue. While I am now a Christian, when I was an agnostic I was just as strongly pro-life. It can be a theological issue but it is fundamentally a moral issue.

Second, why do you only look bacwards toward sperm and eggs with your dependence argument? Utilizing your logic an eight and a half month old fetus and even a one year old child aren't human life because they can't survive independently. Neither, for that matter, can the profoundly retarded. Do you only look backwards because to look forward is to see the slippery slope that Cecil referred to?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

So are you. Obviously you differ on the definition of "human life" . . . but I'm having a hard time seeing why yours is more "scientific" or otherwise superior.

Cecil, the difference is that I'm arguing that I can't figure out any way to settle the question without referring to an essentially theological position -- although, if you want to offer me some crisp definition of why a blastocyst created by joining sperm and egg is "Life" while one created from dedifferentiated adult cells is not, I'd be happy to give it a look.

And that's the real difference: "I'll assume my definition and prove that I'm right" is argument by assertion. "I see these logical flaws in your definition" isn't.

[Freaknik]

No, I think the confusion is yours. Excess embryos are created in each IVF cycle precisely if the first implanted fail to take.

That's why there are so many sitting on ice right now.

My 10% figure is straight from Castle's letter to the President. But per a well sourced post from Future Pundit:

"Around eight embryos are created in each IVF treatment cycle but only a maximum of two can be implanted, meaning that there are always spare embryos to be frozen, donated, experimented upon or destroyed."

"A 2003 study by the RAND Law and Health Initiative estimated that there are about 400,000 frozen embryos in IVF clinics across the nation"

That's 400,000 people according to the President and his ilk sitting in deep freeze.

The kicker: these people will never be born. A growing trend is people refusing to donate their excess embryos. They don't want their genetic offspring being raised by strangers. You ain't going to see 400,000 snowflake children anytime soon.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002827.html

I really fail to see how letting them die a natural(?) death in deep freeze is morally superior to research with potential breakthroughs. Sure "potential", but the alternative is the trashcan.

As for why I said the cons are too late-it's because they assented to IVF in the first place. That was the slope we started slipping on.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

First, this is not necessarily a theological issue. While I am now a Christian, when I was an agnostic I was just as strongly pro-life. It can be a theological issue but it is fundamentally a moral issue.

This is another fun side trip, but I'm not going there. Tell me how you come to the "moral not theological" opinion that there is something special about a blastocyst created by fertilization of an egg. If you can do it without refering to a "soul" or some other such mystical entity.

And remember, I'm not arguing from scientific materialism here --- I'm a devoted follower of a mainstream religious tradition that simply doesn't believe in souls. I'm asking you to justify this in a way that doesn't impose a religious assumption I dont share.

Second, why do you only look bacwards toward sperm and eggs with your dependence argument? Utilizing your logic an eight and a half month old fetus and even a one year old child aren't human life because they can't survive independently. Neither, for that matter, can the profoundly retarded. Do you only look backwards because to look forward is to see the slippery slope that Cecil referred to?

No, primarily I look backwards because we're talking about embryos. However, your question is certainly instructive, because if you think about it, you'll realize that we don't generally recognize an absolute right to life in post-natal humans either. (Now, it's possible you're one of the people that does; if so, assume I'm speaking about the majority.) We choose to minimize collateral damage in war, but we don't say that no military operation can proceed unless there is absolutely no possibility of innocents being killed. We don't forbid police the use of deadly force, and we generally don't punish mistaken use of deadly force as harshly as we would murder or manslaughter. We allow Christian Scientists to refuse medical treatment, we allow Seventh Day Adventists to refuse blood products,we allow people to choose not to have chemotherapy or colostomies.

Slippery slope arguments are always difficult, and they're generally based on an underlying fallacy: the notion that once you start on the slippery slope, there is no longer any choice but to follow it all the way. Larry Niven's organlegger universe is literary demonstration of one such, but even then he ends up writing about what happens (eg, in The Patchwork Girl) when people realize the they're too far down the slope.

So here's a puzzle for you. There are a thousand frozen blastocysts in a freezer, and a newborn baby in a ob/gyn wing of a hospital. The hospital's on fire.

You can save the baby --- and let a thousand blastocysts defrost and die. Or you can save the thousand unborn lives, and let the baby burn. Which one do you choose?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I don't know why anyone would take offense with rational argument.

Yeah, I know. But you watch, Rick. Someone's going to call me a Nazi (or a Mengele, or something equivalent.)