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.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjliM2MwZTU1MzI5NTc2ZWFhNTE1NmMwNzNhZDA3MGM=>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.)

[boris]

I really fail to see

And your blind spots should become public policy?

save the baby --- and let a thousand blastocysts defrost and die

Answer mine first.

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?

[Barney Frank]

"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. "

Because it is a fundamental moral concept that human lives are important and should be protected, regardless of whether they possess a soul. Presuambly you agree with that. You simply apply it at a different level of development than I do. You prefer to believe that even though this blastocyst has utterly unique DNA and if implanted will, barring unfortunate circumstances, reach maturity as a unique human being that it is either not human life or if human still not worthy of protection. I do not believe that.

I'll answer your puzzle and give you one as well.

I would save the infant. But that merely means that embryos do indeed have less value to me than an infant, not that they have none. An embryo can very well have less value than a fully developed infant and still be worth protecting when its possible.

Here's my puzzle for you:
The same hospital's on fire. I can save my wife or you.
I save my wife because I value her more highly than you. Does that mean you have no value or had no right to exist?

BTW, how does your argument about an absolute right to life for adults address anything I said? I did not argue anywhere for an absolute right to life for embryos, children or adults. My argument was that if we apply your 'dependence' logic forward rather than backward we get some rather ugly results.

As far as slippery slopes, I find it more instructive to look at the historical record than science fiction novels. Nor did I state that slippery slopes inevitably lead to a cliff. But that does not mean they don't exist.

[clarice]

OT:TM have you seen this hilarious post about Greenwald's sock puppet? http://ace.mu.nu/archives/186941.php
Apparently, Patterico is on this, too.

[clarice]

Yes, he does.LOL

http://patterico.com/2006/07/20/4893/a-brief-comment-on-the-greenwald-kerfuffle/

(Time to check the comments here about him and see if we have even more sock puppetry.)

[Freaknik]

Hold on Barney Frank-by choosing your wife to save from a burning hospital, you admitted your criteria: her life was more valuable to you. That did not discount the value of other lives; you just have your priorities. I agree with you.

So when, e.g. Nancy Reagan, says she favors research because her suffering family members, and a chance to cure their suffering, no matter how slight, are far more valuable to her than nameless and brainless embryos destined for a medical waste bag...

her logic differs from yours how?

[Rick Ballard]

It's not going too badly, Charlie. I wasn't expecting much of a synthesis in the first place.

Not sharing a telos just doesn't seem to lend itself to a happy medium.

[JM Hanes]

boris:

I was referring to President Bush's comment about children not being spare parts, just as I did in my first post. At least the President, however, refrained from being snide as well.

I, personally, am opposed to late abortions, and as stated above, I would make the sale (vs. donation) of embryos illegal. When you frame your question in terms of a developed fetus, however, you, yourself, you are implicitly relying on the substantive difference between blastocyst and unborn baby to make your point more telling. Just as Charlie does in his.

BTW, the embryos at issue do not "perish of natural causes" (nor do they come into existence naturally for that matter) they are discarded -- at the direction of the donors, I believe.

After you answer Charlie's question, perhaps you will answer me this one: Are you prepared argue that if a husband & wife opt for in vitro fertilization they should be compelled to allow any unused embryos -- or as the President would presumably put it, any of their children -- thus created be made available for adoption by others?

[Freaknik]

Isn't it child abuse to keep a child locked in a freezer and never feed it?

I would certainly think so.

Therefore, either embryos are not "children" or massive barbarism is happening in this country.

[JM Hanes]

Cecil:

"So far, the ruling appears to be: "yes, but not with government funding." Seems to me like a reasonable compromise."

Make that goverment funding at the federal level. In some ways, I actually prefer a state by state model, but that's a slightly different issue. As noted above, I'm not dismissing ethical concerns. I certainly see no harm in proceeding cautiously and don't know if the particular piece of legislation the President vetoed actually addresses all of my own reservations.

I just don't happen to believe that one position on this issue is moral and that the alternative is immoral. IMO, there are legitimate humanitarian concerns driving both sides of this argument. Those on the pro-research side seem more compelling to me personally while the slippery slope argument does not.

[Cecil Turner]

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 . . .

Fine, but that leaves the question unsettled, so your answer is that you have none. And if the question were whether or not to throw such researchers in jail, it might be sufficient to show the definition question is endlessly arguable. But if the question is whether or not to use my (and similar-minded citizens') tax money to fund procedures we find morally dubious, I'd suggest the burden more logically rests with proponents.

My 10% figure is straight from Castle's letter to the President.

I didn't find it, but obviously not This one? And this bit is just wrong:

"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."

The numbers of embryos harvested in each cycle vary widely, and the whole reason for freezing them is to use them in future cycles (obviating the need for harvesting any in that cycle). And I have personal experience with four and five being implanted (though the trend is toward much fewer, probably eventually resulting in "one" as the preferred option), so that's hooey as well. The reason there are usually some left over is that at some point the desired number of pregnancies is achieved, and things rarely work out as we plan.

Sure "potential", but the alternative is the trashcan.

I suspect that for the majority, the alternative is not so clearcut. The most obvious scenario in which it is, is where the embryo is being discarded at the direction of the parents, which again I can find no data for, don't support, and would rather government not be involved. (And that NY Times story futurepundit linked isn't very helpful, as it's obviously mixing its stats.) In most cases, it's impossible to select a viable embryo and know its fate.

Isn't it child abuse to keep a child locked in a freezer and never feed it?

What if freezing is the only way to keep it alive, and it is later revived without harm? Obviously an embryo does not equal a child, nor is the required care congruent. That does not mean they are worthless.

Make that goverment funding at the federal level.

Good point.

I just don't happen to believe that one position on this issue is moral and that the alternative is immoral.

Two in a row. There are obvious competing interests, thoughtful positions on both sides, and people are going to be impacted by others' beliefs they don't share. And while sophistry for the purpose of illuminating the moral principles involved may be helpful, belittling each others' moral positions is not.

[ed]

Hmmm.

@ Charlie

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

Except it isn't.

Well then. If there's sufficient private funding for embryonic stem cell research then there's no real need for public funding.

Case closed.

[Barney Frank]

"her logic differs from yours how?"

It differs profoundly.
My logic states that just because person A is more 'valuable' or developed than person B does not mean person B has zero value or zero rights.
Her, and by inference your, logic is apparently that because nameless and brainless embryos have less value they in fact have no inherent value or rights, only those allowed by the already developed.

And it doesn't have to be a very slippery slope to get from utilizing 'nameless and brainless embryos' to nameless and brainless fetuses, especially in the era of the partial birth abortion and 'ethicists' like Peter Singer.

[Sue]

BTW, the embryos at issue do not "perish of natural causes" (nor do they come into existence naturally for that matter) they are discarded -- at the direction of the donors, I believe.

Isn't there a difference between discarding the unused embryos and keeping them viable for experimental use? Ethically, anyway?

There is a slippery slope here and no one is willing yet to address that slope. Where do you stop? At what point do we cross that line?

[richard mcenroe]

Charlie (Colorado) — Would you settle for 'frahnkensteen'? I'm partial to the classics. *g*

[Freaknik]

"The reason there are usually some left over is that at some point the desired number of pregnancies is achieved, and things rarely work out as we plan."

Ok. Forget numbers. I referred to stats and you denied them based on personal experience. Fine. You do agree that "spare" embryos are created in the IVF process. What else do you want to call the excess embryos "reserves". In any event, we know there's at least 400,000 sitting on ice.

(Personally, I see that as pretty freaky. I think the whole IVF thing is pretty freaky. I just wouldn't try to legislate against it cause it's not my business.)

But for Mssrs Frank and Turner:

You don't deny that some parents "discard" their excess embros do you? How does that differ from infanticide? Aren't they basically saying: discard my child-not potential child-but actual existing child (if the blastocyst is granted full personhood?)

Do you wish to outlaw that option or not?

If you wish to outlaw it-what do you propose forcing the parents to do with the excess embryos?

If you don't wish to outlaw it-why shouldn't the parents be allowed to let the embryos be used for research?

If in the end-your only objection is "not with my tax dollars", fine I can deal with that, but only if you support my right to get a tax refund for my share of the war in Iraq, since I oppose it on moral grounds.

[Freaknik]

P.S. I see the problem with the maximum of 2 being implanted-that was from an English website-where that is indeed the rule.

In fact-Senator Brownback wants to adopt such a law here to try to cut down on the number of excess embryos created per IVF cycle:

Sen. Brownback Calls for Limiting Number of Embryos Created During IVF To Reduce Number of Unused Embryos, USA

They say there as many 12 embros are created per IVF cycle. How many IVF couples have 12 kids?

[Cecil Turner]

I referred to stats and you denied them based on personal experience.

Sorry, CD, but your "stats" were unsourced and irreproducible. The "well-sourced" bit you provided from Futurepundit is just plain wrong, and the article cited in the Times vigorously mixed apples and oranges:

But 3 to 10 years later, 9 out of 11 couples who had said they would donate to another couple were no longer willing to do so, Dr. Klock said.

The recommended maximum used to be five years, so it's not hard to see why a relatively low percentage of those dated requests would go forward. Similarly:

"Of the dozen or 15 cases I've handled where people have considered donating embryos to another couple, over half of those cases never went forward,"

Not entirely surprising considering the practical concerns (illustrated by the later quote):

What's more, only about half of donated embryos are viable after the thawing process, and only a third of those result in a successful pregnancy, Mr. Stoddart said.

The only real statistics in there was the link to the Rand study, which gives a decidedly different picture:

Although the total number of frozen embryos is large, the RAND-SART survey found that only a small percentage of these embryos have been designated for research use. As the figure illustrates, the vast majority of stored embryos (88.2 percent) are being held for family building, with just 2.8 percent of the total (11,000) designated for research. Of the remaining embryos, 2.3 percent are awaiting donation to another patient, 2.2 percent are designated to be discarded, and 4.5 percent are held in storage for other reasons, including lost contact with a patient, patient death, abandonment, and divorce.

You don't deny that some parents "discard" their excess embros do you? How does that differ from infanticide?

I see it as approximately analogous to abortion. (Very slightly less egregious, since the embryos are not implanted.) And I'm quite willing to accept the "not outlawed, but not government funded either" compromise we seem to've reached on abortion.

. . . but only if you support my right to get a tax refund for my share of the war in Iraq . . .

Nope. No more than I can realistically claim a refund for welfare payments. I do support your right to lobby for your preferred solution (and my right to question your preferred candidate's fitness for office as a result).

They say there as many 12 embros are created per IVF cycle. How many IVF couples have 12 kids?

Again, apples and oranges. If (using the Times's numbers) 50% of embryos survive the freezing process, and 1/3 of those implant, 12 embryos yields 2 kids. I have three.

[Freaknik2]

No you had 12 "real live" kids per President Bush*, but only 3 survived.

What's your feeling on Senator's Brownback wanting to limit that number? There's already a proposed bill in Kentucky making it a felony to "fertilize more than one (1) egg" during IVF.

Do you support any of that?

*"In the complex debate over embryonic stem cell research, we must remember that real human lives are involved --both the lives of those with diseases that might find cures from this research, and the lives of the embryos that will be destroyed in the process." Bush, May 24, 2005

[Tom Maguire]

I haven't absorbed the full thread but I picked up on this:

Isn't there a difference between discarding the unused embryos and keeping them viable for experimental use? Ethically, anyway?

That would also tie in to this plantive and misdirected point from Freaknik:

You don't deny that some parents "discard" their excess embros do you? How does that differ from infanticide? Aren't they basically saying: discard my child-not potential child-but actual existing child (if the blastocyst is granted full personhood?)

Hmm, I see that freaknik has at least heard the opposing argument:

If in the end-your only objection is "not with my tax dollars", fine I can deal with that, but only if you support my right to get a tax refund for my share of the war in Iraq, since I oppose it on moral grounds.

Well - the question of individual objections to a nation's decision to go to war has been dealt with for centuries, so there is nothing new there.

Fortunately, freaknik is free to move to a state that subsidizes stem cell research, is free to buy shares in a private company doing that, and is free to contribute to a university doing that. Sorry, you are not currently free to tap my wallet.

Come the day when private alternatives to war are on offer, I suppose we can take up freaknik's counter-offer. Until then, going to war will be something of a national all-in type decision.
Let me toss out a related medical/ethical dilemma for the utilitarians out there - what should medical science do with the (gruesome) Nazi medical experiments?

Just as an example, the Nazis did some brutal and inhumane work on exposure, frostbite, and the like, testing the survivability of prisoners in various scenarios. (One of their goals was to provide useful data for the German Navy, BTW, since sailors get swept overboard in icy seas).

Some folks sidestep the issue by pointing to methodogical flaws in the "research" - starving prisoners may not have been as robust as German sailors, for example.

However, as a general question - these prisoners are long dead and ignoring the research won't bring them back - should we comb it for useful data?

IIRC, the medical community's answer is the obvious one, which can be paraphrased as, "waddya, nuts?"

[Freaknik]

TM-you're so damn wishy-washy. Didn't you just post you opposed the veto? "I am disappointed by the veto (also weakly)."

Now your story line is:"Sorry, you are not currently free to tap my wallet."

By opposing the veto, didn't you just state your preference for tapping Cecil Turner's wallet?

[Barney Frank]

"If you don't wish to outlaw it-why shouldn't the parents be allowed to let the embryos be used for research?"

Because of what you refuse to acknowledge; the slippery slope. It will almost inevitably lead to the creation of embryos solely for the purpose of extracting stem cells, and where that will lead only Aldous Huxley knows.

It seems to me a sensible middle ground is to limit the number of created embryos per couple, which seems to be occuring anyway because of advances in IVF, and encouraging parents to present their unused embryos for embryonic adoption. Any that are not adopted would be allowed to die. Its an imperfect world with imperfect solutions, but that to me is preferable to the establishment of the precedent that human life at any stage is merely fodder for experimentation to benefit those of us who have made it out of the womb.
The idea that they should be used for medical research if they're going to be discarded anyway would seem to apply to any person who is going to die, which is to say all of us. Why should Charlie's or Freaknik's organs go to waste anymore than the pluripotent stem cells of an embryo? After all the state would seem to have a much greater utilitarian public interest in using organs of adults that actually would save thousands of lives than some basic stem cell research that may never lead anywhere.
Those in favor of embryonic research ridicule the idea that an embryo is human life. And yet most are unwilling to go so far as to say a person should be compelled to give up their organs after death. Which leads us to the conclusion that a living, growing embryo is not a human life deserving of any protections but a corpse is.

[Sue]

I feel like George Taylor at the end of the 1st Planet of the Apes...

"Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally really did it."

"You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! G-d damn you all to hell!"

Not sure why...something about not realizing what where we are heading maybe?

[Cecil Turner]

No you had 12 "real live" kids per President Bush* . . .

Oh please. "'Real live' kids" ≠ "lives of the embryos."

What's your feeling on Senator's Brownback wanting to limit that number?

I suspect Sen Brownback is about as qualified as I am to determine the maximum number of transferred embryos for IVF patients. Though I will say that a plan to transfer several embryos in order to improve the odds is a good indicator that it's time to see a new reproductive endocrinologist.

Because of what you refuse to acknowledge; the slippery slope.

I also happen to believe it's wrong, even if done once, even by individuals. But it's also a very hard call, and not one I am prepared to judge or supportive of legislation to correct.

[boris]

Are you prepared argue

FWIW my position is very simple. Every embryo deliberately created should have a chance for life.

Does that mean every one should be implanted ??? no

It means every one should have a chance of being selected for implantation.

By that rule left over IVF embryos have had at least one chance. After that mox nix according to the boris rule. The Bush policy is ok by that rule, as are some other proposals. Some that seem compliant up front would inevitably lead to it's violation. I'm not ok with that.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

Ok how about this.

Here's a link to a detailed explanation why federally funding embryonic stem cells isn't worthwhile.

If you're a proponent of federal funding of embryonic stem cells then please post a detailed refutation of the article.

link

And while you're at it why not explain why you cannot go and get states to fund this nonsense a la California and New Jersey.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

BTW. Trying to equate the loss of embryos in IVF operations and through the natural pregnancy cycle with the dissection of embryos in embryonic stem cell research is utter crap.

There is no equivalency and if that's the entire basis of your argument, then you have no argument whatsoever. Frankly I'm not going to even remotely legitimize any such nonsense by even responding to it.

It's bullshit. Don't like it? Don't care.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Because it is a fundamental moral concept that human lives are important and should be protected, regardless of whether they possess a soul.

Nope, sorry. You just moved from "soul" to "fundamental moral concept." The problem is, as I wrote above, it's not a "fundamental moral concept", or not at least so fundamental we don't (rightly) sometimes violate it.

The rest of your argument depends on this, so you're begging the question again.

But give it another try.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I would save the infant. But that merely means that embryos do indeed have less value to me than an infant, not that they have none. An embryo can very well have less value than a fully developed infant and still be worth protecting when its possible.

So we're admitting that the blastocysts don't have an absolute fundamental right to life, but instead the right to life is dependent and conditional.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Now, if you're willing to sacrifice a thousand blastocysts in order to save a newborn, why aren't you willing to sacrifice a thousand blastocysts in order to save an adult?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Here's my puzzle for you:
The same hospital's on fire. I can save my wife or you.
I save my wife because I value her more highly than you. Does that mean you have no value or had no right to exist?

Nope. But it does mean that my right to live is neither fundamental nor unconditional.

We're really making progress here: we've apparently disposed of the concent that there is a "fundamental" right to life, and we've established that one living newborn has more of a right to life than a thousand frozen blastocysts.

But, as a side effect, if you're going to continue the argument, you need to base it on something other than the blastocyst's inherent fundamental right to life.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Well then. If there's sufficient private funding for embryonic stem cell research then there's no real need for public funding.

Nice try, but a straw man. Or begging the question again, I can't decide. Maybe both.

(Thinking...)

Yeah, both. "Begging the question" because your argument presupposes that there is sufficient funding, which (among people who think it wought be funded at all, at least) is not a widely shared opinion. And a straw man because your "case closed" conclusion depends on "establishing" something that turns out not to be true.

[Cecil Turner]

Now, if you're willing to sacrifice a thousand blastocysts in order to save a newborn, why aren't you willing to sacrifice a thousand blastocysts in order to save an adult?

It's a bit more active than that. You're going to have to kill the blastocysts, not just fail to save them. And just as I think most ethicists would balk at measures like cutting necessary organs out of a terminally ill patient to save another, I have a problem with growing a fetus for the spare parts and then harvesting them to cure the patient. Using the blastocysts to make stem cells is similar (though less extreme), and not something I'm willing to sanction.

But, as a side effect, if you're going to continue the argument, you need to base it on something other than the blastocyst's inherent fundamental right to life.

Seems to me you're basing the argument on an adult's fundamental right to medical treatment, which is if anything less compelling. Again, if you deny all ethical considerations (of which the right to life is certainly the most basic), it renders all arguments moot.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Boris:

And your blind spots should become public policy?

Nope. No more than yours should.

(Ad hominem abusive. 5 yard penalty.)

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?

Straw man: I'm not the one asserting that there's a "fundamental" right to life, and I've already noted that we make comparative decisions all the time. That's a different decision than sacrificing an undifferentiated blastocyst, so we'd make it differently.

[Sue]

Now, if you're willing to sacrifice a thousand blastocysts in order to save a newborn, why aren't you willing to sacrifice a thousand blastocysts in order to save an adult?

I would save a thousand newborns before I would save an adult. In your imaginary fire. What does that say? A thousand newborns are worth more to me than 1 adult?

We are getting nowhere.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Charlie (Colorado) — Would you settle for 'frahnkensteen'? I'm partial to the classics. *g*

Can I have a blonde lab assistant too?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

It's bullshit. Don't like it? Don't care.

Ed, your point is, at its heart, that you're willing to use force or coercion to make people do what you want them to.

How does this differ, logically, from Eric Rudolph?

I'd also note that while I abhor violence, I'm actually quite good at it.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

There is a slippery slope here and no one is willing yet to address that slope. Where do you stop? At what point do we cross that line?

Sue, the problem with "slippery slope" arguments is that they end up running into a paradox called a "sorites". It's usually stated as "the bald man."

You've got a guy with alopecia totalis: not a hair on his body. He's certainly bald.

Now, we find a treatment for alopecia totalis, and as the treatment is applied, he sprouts one hair, right on top of his head. With one hair, is he still bald? You bet.

Adding another hair doesn't make him not-bald. Neither does a third hair. So it's clear that adding just one hair to a blad man doesn't make him not-bald. But if you keep adding hairs, eventually he won't be bald any longer.

Trying to ask where's the "bright line" on a slippery slope is like that. We can come up with examples we think are definitely on one side or the other, but then we can probably construct an example between them --- what then?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Fine, but that leaves the question unsettled, so your answer is that you have none. And if the question were whether or not to throw such researchers in jail, it might be sufficient to show the definition question is endlessly arguable. But if the question is whether or not to use my (and similar-minded citizens') tax money to fund procedures we find morally dubious, I'd suggest the burden more logically rests with proponents.

On what basis? What privileges your position over others?

As I said, I would have signed the bill, but I'm not disturbed that Bush didn't. That's because I can live with the idea that other people may not share my exact ethical position.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

My logic states that just because person A is more 'valuable' or developed than person B does not mean person B has zero value or zero rights.

Except that your position also seems to assume that person B's rights overwhelm any other consideration. Clearly B < A doesn't imply B=0. But it also doesn't imply B>C for any possible C.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

If you're a proponent of federal funding of embryonic stem cells then please post a detailed refutation of the article.

Ed, you've already asserted that no argument can possibly matter to you ("Don't like it? Don't care.") so why should we engage in gratuitous disputation with you?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

No, sorry, I don't buy it. First of all, you're using the "fetus" straw man again; since we've already agreed that there are differences in "value", until we have some specific scale we can't use arguments about fetuses to apply to blastocysts. Second, the blastocysts in the freezer are going to spoil eventually; if not in a fire, simply because they've got a limited shelf life.

Unless you're willing to compel the parents to allow their extra blastocysts to be implanted in strangers, we're not talking about whether or not they'll be implanted; we're talking about blastocysts that won't be implanted one way or the other.

[Barney Frank]

"I'd also note that while I abhor violence, I'm actually quite good at it."

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

"The problem is, as I wrote above, it's not a "fundamental moral concept", or not at least so fundamental we don't (rightly) sometimes violate it."

It is pretty difficult to have a discussion when you can't even acknowledge a basic right to life for adults, because there are certain, rare and extreme examples where it doesn't apply. You seem to argue only in absolutes and even attempt to portray other's arguments as absolutes when they were not.

You also seem to have a chip on your shoulder for some reason, with snark and condescension pretty frequent. In fact you seemed to start out with both in your first post on this subject.

I find it unprofitable to discuss things when one's interlociter is so disposed.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I would save a thousand newborns before I would save an adult. In your imaginary fire. What does that say? A thousand newborns are worth more to me than 1 adult?

Yeah, that's what it means. You have a problem with that?

[Barney Frank]

***interlocutor***

[Charlie (Colorado)]

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

It means that when one goes from logical argument to force, one had best be sure which side has the greater force.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

It is pretty difficult to have a discussion when you can't even acknowledge a basic right to life for adults, because there are certain, rare and extreme examples where it doesn't apply. You seem to argue only in absolutes and even attempt to portray other's arguments as absolutes when they were not.

It's pretty hard to have a logical argument where some of the people involved insist that they can redefine their terms at will. Here you're complaining that there's a "basic right to life" for adults, but then complaining that I point out there are cases where it doesn't apply.

Sorry, but it's not my argument: I'm just pointing out the flaws in yours.

What does it mean for there to be a "basic fundamental right to life" if it isn't always a right? Or, if you're admitting that there are differing "rights to life" when comparing two or more people, what makes the "right to life" of a random blastocyst greater than the right to life of Michael J Fox?

[Cecil Turner]

On what basis? What privileges your position over others?

Right back atcha. If we're arguing definitions, there's nothing to choose between 'em.

That's because I can live with the idea that other people may not share my exact ethical position.
Concur. Which is why I'm not arguing for making it illegal (my actual preference). I do believe those attempting to dip into my wallet (and hence force my involvement with a particular course of action) bear the burden to show it's warranted. Per your contention above, that's obviously impossible. Hence . . .

Except that your position also seems to assume that person B's rights overwhelm any other consideration.

I think in general, person B's right to life overwhelms any lesser consideration for any other individual (including possibly life-saving medical treatment). But again, that requires some agreed-upon basis for discussion, which we apparently lack.

Unless you're willing to compel the parents to allow their extra blastocysts to be implanted in strangers . . .

Not that it matters, but I suspect the main reason they won't be implanted is the relative paucity of strangers looking for blastocysts (and willing to jump through the required hoops to adopt those with possible freezer burn). If you run Rand's numbers, there are still ~9,000 available for adoption, which suggests an ample supply for a relatively rare demand.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

You also seem to have a chip on your shoulder for some reason, with snark and condescension pretty frequent. In fact you seemed to start out with both in your first post on this subject.

I find it unprofitable to discuss things when one's interlociter is so disposed.

And one opponent flees the field.

[Barney Frank]

Charlie,

Get a cold washcloth and mop the brow. Take a few deep breaths in a cool dark room. Maybe a little slow jazz to calm the nerves.

Ed just said he wasn't going to respond to your argument because he found it to be 'bullshit'; not that he and a few of the boys were coming around to check out just how pluripotent your stem cells really are.

I'm really big, used to box and own lots of guns. Big whoop. Sheesh.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Right back atcha. If we're arguing definitions, there's nothing to choose between 'em.

No, because I'm not arguing that my opinion should be forced on others.

I think in general, person B's right to life overwhelms any lesser consideration for any other individual (including possibly life-saving medical treatment). But again, that requires some agreed-upon basis for discussion, which we apparently lack.

The difficuty being that this falls apart logically. What about if person B is a murderer fleeing the scene of the crime? Does their right to life overwhelm Policeman A's consideration that shooting and killing B might protect others? What about if person B is a serial rapist? Isn't rape a "lesser consideration" than death? Our laws seem to say so. Are you saying that a Policeman A shouldn't shoot Rapist B rather than let him escape?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Ed just said he wasn't going to respond to your argument because he found it to be 'bullshit'; not that he and a few of the boys were coming around to check out just how pluripotent your stem cells really are.

Barney, one way or the other, his argument depends on force or coercion; I'm just not letting him weasel it.

I'm really big, used to box and own lots of guns. Big whoop. Sheesh.

But you're safe from me, because I'm willing to use argument to bring you around to my position.