Thanks to Bill for getting this discussion started! Bill is the proprietor of INDC Journal. Bill is a libertarian conservative and is more center-right. He did great work on Rathergate. I read him every day and agree with a lot of what he says. I even listened to his radio show once. (Don’t tell him this, but it was primarily because the Captain and Kate were guests.) On the issue of Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR), we part ways. We have been having a great discussion over at INDC here and here.
On his first post he says:
A Dem feels a wave of giddiness about the impending veto on the stem-cell bill:
[quote within quote]
Perfect. Just what we need. Take an issue where public sentiment is clearly with the Democrats, and set it up so the radical conservatives of the Texas Republican Party are standing between sick people and miracle cures. Exectly the right issue for the 2006/2008 elections: science and health v. fanaticism.
[end of quote within quote]
I think that he overstates the issue’s resonance and mileage with the general public (though it obviously has an impact with me), but otherwise, his instincts are correct. A couple more pieces of emergency Terry Schiavo legislation and anti-science pro-life proxies spun by the Dems as “the rise of far right elements of the Republican Party,” and
the GOP could have a bad 2006. Which frankly might not be a catastrophic thing, from where I’m sitting.
Tom Delay’s decision to go high profile on these issues is especially harmful.
Here are some of the comments:
You disagree with not funding embryonic stem cell research so you will probably disagree with this analysis:
I think the above post is correct in its predictions unless the GOP does a good job (for once, please? C’mon Hughes and Rove…) of getting their message (embryonic stem cell research is murder) out there.
In case you hadn’t noticed, I am a social conservative. And fiscal. And libertarian.
Posted by Hans Mast
Well, that’s a perfectly valid political plan, but …
embryonic stem cell research is murder
… they are going to have to do a heck of a lot more than “get their message out there,” as most Americans do not share that ethical frame of reference. It’s a bit more work to change that.
Posted by Bill from INDC
Which is actually quite true. When a society turns from Christianity, their whole moral framework collapses and they are left with a morally bankrupt country that eventually collapses as well.
Refusing to spend tax dollars on a line of research that has had NO success yet (while adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells are out there curing things as we speak) that is controversial at best in the moral/ethical department is NOT “anti-science.”
Too bad Soros is more interested in Leftist anti-Americanism than actually putting those millions upon millions to use.
I voted against the CA EMBRYONIC stem cell boondoggle not because I want people to die, but because I believe when people are starving you start by proposing to feed them hamburger not peacock tongues.
BTW when polls accurately reflected what the Schiavo case was really about, the numbers were quite different than the very agenda driven ABC one.
It is a matter not only of fact, but message and the MSM still smarts after being knocked off as kingmaker so they will not put anything from the GOP as positive under any circumstances (and they’ll make darlings of the ‘mavericks’)
It’s reminscent of how CA’s legislature for years punished CA citizens for having the audacity to pass Prop 13 (cap on property taxes)… every unfixed classroom, every increase in crime, members would sniff..”You asked for it!”
Posted by Darleen
But Darleen, while I have some rather strong disagreements about the specifics of your comment, what’s more notable is that you’re pining for imaginary context. It’s not what YOU think it to be, or the perspective that COULD be presented “when,” “if,” it’s how the public perceives the moves and how they are spun.
And I’m telling you, for example, every time Delay steps anywhere near a mic, it’s bad for the GOP. Same with Randall Terry and the Schiavo thing.
And this, btw, is spin:
on a line of research that has had NO success yet (while adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells are out there curing things as we speak)
Ask yourself why? WHY hasn’t it shown success yet? This is one of the most ridiculous arguments that I’ve heard out of people against this bill thus far. Castigating a nascent research angle because it isn’t “out there curing things” IS anti-science. And silly.
Posted by Bill from INDC
I understood little of Bill’s point in that comment. I did understand the last three paragraphs and I totally disagree. What he’s trying to say is that it is a circular argument to say that ESCR hasn’t shown any success: It hasn’t been funded so it can’t show any success so we shouldn’t fund it because it hasn’t had success. The problem with the circular arguement assertation: It has been funded. $3 billion to be exact. And that’s just a single contribution. That doesn’t count the private funding.
How come there is the same support for banning abortion? What’s the difference?
If you really think about it, the only difference is how well the message has been gotten out. If you believe abortion is wrong you must, by logical extension, believe that embryonic stem cell research that destroys embryos is wrong.
I have no problem with research that wouldn’t harm the human embryo, but I’m not aware of any such research.
The whole frustrating thing about this debate is the unrealistic claims proponents of embryonic stem cell research make. They claim to be able to cure a whole range of diseases with embryonic stem cells.
Two problems: #1 The same things can be done with, say, umbilical cord stem cells. (i.e. they don’t need to kill an embryo to do it.) #2 Those claims as to miracle cures are not realistic. There is no animal testing that has been done, which is always an essential prerequisite to knowing that something will work on humans. Its all totally theoretical that it might somehow. They have nothing concrete. They don’t even have a *theoretical blueprint* of how to go about solving those diseases.
Furthermore, embryonic stem cell research has not been “banned” as the Liberals like to say. All that’s happening is that the federal gov is not *funding* ESCR. Private money is free to research it.
If all these miracle cures will result, it’s a good business investment right? As you know, hundreds of millions of dollars are pouring into ESCR. Oh, wait…
Anyway: I don’t think that it is right that the government fund a research project that a large portion of the population objects to on moral grounds. I think it is a fair compromise to let it be legal, but to not let our tax dollars fund it.
For the record, I was against the whole “objecting to removing the Terry Schiavo feeding tube” thing. I had a premature little brother that lived for a week. We took him off life-support when we saw he was not going to make it. I support removing artificial life support when the patient is suffering and is going to die anyway. I am a social con, but not a knee-jerk one. I try to think things thru… 
Posted by: Hans Mast
How come there is the same support for banning abortion? What’s the difference?
Hate to break it to you Hans, but banning abortion is not particularly popular either. About 2/3 of Americans support first trimester abortion.
The whole frustrating thing about this debate is the unrealistic claims proponents of embryonic stem cell research make. They claim to be able to cure a whole range of diseases with embryonic stem cells.
This is hyperbolic. SOME proponents make wild claims, like Dem presidential candidates.
Others recognize that the resaerch MAY have unique POTENTIAL, as the cells are a template for any type of diseased cell.
If all these miracle cures will result, it’s a good business investment right?
See the comments under my other post. Private corporations aren’t predisposed to fund nascent research, as there is no short to midterm profit potential. Government funded research often lays the groundwork for practical applications.
Sorry, but there’s a lot that’s ideological about your comment yet not rooted in practical terms. And it strikes me that while a few well-informed folks have poked holes in my arguments on this issue, the majority seem to have no conception of how research takes place, the timelines or uncertainty of engaging in initial exploratory research, etc.
Posted by: Bill from INDC
The federal government refusing to fund embryonic stem cell research is not anti science, it is just not going to give the research taxpayer dollars.
If you feel strongly about the issue, by all means pull out your checkbook and start writing some checks.
The US doesn’t forbid the research it only refuses to handover taxpayer dollars to do it.
Also, at this moment in time the research with the most promising results is in adult stem cell and umbilical stem cell research. I figure if our federal dollars are going to be used for research, it would be a lot less wasteful to support the research that is getting results.
Posted by Just Me
On his second post, he posts a Cox and Forkum cartoon:
Statement of philosophy number 1: Let’s kill defenseless babies and we might find a cure for some diseases.
Statement of philosophy number 2: Let’s kill the old, weak, mentally handicapped, & defenseless to give the healthy ones a better chance.
Not much difference, is there? The first is what the philosophy of ESCR supporters boils down to. The second is Hitler’s philosophy.
Now, because of politicans making excessive and exaggerated comparisons, on way too many occasions, between their opponents and Hitler, bringing Hitler into any conversation seems to be somewhat taboo. I believe it is a dangerous trend to forget what happened at the Holocaust. We need to remember and avoid making those same mistakes.
It is not permissible to kill a life to save a life. By killing one life (embryos) to save another life (diseased), you are actually doing exactly what the cartoon depicts George as saying: You are making a judgement that some stages of life are more important than others.
This cartoon is actually ludicrous in the extreme. It advocates a position that is exactly in line with the vilified character’s statement in the cartoon.
Quote of the moment: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” - Declaration of Independence
Posted by Hans Mast
1. I’ll give you that it’s a hyperbolic cartoon, but cartoons are often limited to exagerrated points by the medium.
2. What is happening to the leftover embryos not used by a fertility clinic now, Hans?
[quote within quote]
Despite the national soul-searching stirred up by stem cell research, human embryos are discarded all the time in fertility clinics - and hardly anyone seems to mind.
At one Bay Area clinic, they are flushed down the drain in a metal sink. At another, a technician drops them into a medical waste bin, to be picked up and incinerated by hospital staff.
At still another, a “quiet area” is set aside in the lab, where frozen embryos are thawed and allowed to live out their last days - usually no more than three or four at most.
“We have to follow the wishes of the patient,” said Dr. Carl Herbert, president of the San Francisco Fertility Centers, which operates two clinics in the city. “It’s up to them to decide what happens to their own embryos.”
But the creation and destruction of human embryos is part and parcel of modern infertility treatments, reflecting both the inherent inefficiency of human reproduction and efforts by fertility clinics to keep costs down and success rates as high as possible.
Now, the stem cell controversy has begun raising the political stakes at the same time medical technology keeps pushing the limits of human fertility. So the number of surplus embryos stored in the nation’s approximately 360 in vitro fertilization clinics promises to increase.
No one knows how many exist already, but some claim the number may be close to 200,000 - not counting the many others that are discarded immediately without being frozen.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/08/20/MN58092.DTL
Posted by Bill from INDC
His first “point” is easily answered:
The cartoon is not merely hyperbolic, it is advocating a position that it makes fun of in the very same cartoon.
Of course, they probably didn’t notice that when they wrote it. *grin*
Posted by Hans Mast
His second point really threw me for a loop. What do I believe on that? Please, my readers: discuss, discuss.
I think Bill’s comment, “most Americans do not share that ethical frame of reference”, really got to the crux of the issue: Unless you have Christ in your life, unless you have the purpose that being a Christian brings, unless you have some absolute moral foundation other than your own or others’ whims, you are adrift in life with no ultimate purpose. You may purport to have moral values but they have no foundation. They change with your wishes and desires. “If it feels good, do it.” Only through God do you have a lasting moral standard and foundation.
