"An override of the veto is not expected."

Stone-age Neandrethal Republicans prevail again.

Not to worry, there will be enough votes after this next election to override the next Chimpish veto of this much needed legislation.

As I understand it, it doesn't stop the research from happening. It's just that our tax dollars will not used.

Lee,
Thanks for displaying your typical level of honesty again. Didn't bother to read the link about stem cells from placenta. Just to spin.

Here is my observation of the liberal left:

* They will find hard to kill the weak/innocent/disabled (abortion, embryo stemcell, euthanasia.

* At the same time they will fight hard to protect the criminals and the terrorists.

So typical of the left.

Because, you know, it'd be a good thing for George Bush, Hillary Clinton, and the 'scientists' who think tobacco smoke is good for you to define what is and what isn't acceptable to destroy based on things like size and ability to sustain itself.

Sounds like a great idea.

Applications of stem cell research are not 'free'. While we can learn about the cells without creating and destroying new embryos, just taking ones from IVF clinics, applying this research is not as simple. The most essential problem is that of host-versus-graft-disease, which can occur when stem cells with just one base pair of DNA off from the host, sometimes even resulting from other lesser cell attributes. It results in scars and rare fatalities during bone marrow transplants (an adult stem cell treatment), and will no doubt be even worse for treatments requiring stem cells be applied to the brain or spinal cord. The only way to avoid this with embryonic stem cells are to make new embryos - clones of the person to be treated. One for every 'cure'.

In short, embryonic stem cell applications will require millions of embryos to be created and destroyed, letting loose the possibility of large scale human cloning and the assorted ugliness that would accompany such a thing.

This is not the only choice to discover meaningful stem cell treatments. Scientists have already found ways to cause cells to 'transdifferentiate', including turn from mature cells into adult stem cells. While the research is currently limited, treatments have already been successfully applied, and have done so without requiring anything vaguely human-like be destroyed.

Did anyone else ever have one of those days when they wished they lived during another era? Like maybe the late 1800's?

gattsuru,
Thanks for the summary. IT is well known that adult stem cells have been succefull in practice so far. The insistence on embryonic stem cell research even demanding gov funding just shows the extreme nature of these people, espcially the liberals, to devalue human lives.

Ya know, it's too bad he couldn't have vetoed some of those bloated spending bills that came his way, or perhaps the McCain Feingold legislation, or Sarbanes-Oxley, or some other such bad legislation. Regardless of the rightness of his veto today, it's a shame that it's taken him this damn long to find a bill objectionable enough for him to veto.

As I understand it, it doesn't stop the research from happening. It's just that our tax dollars will not used.

Well, then you don't understand it. Any lab that gets any federal funding cannot do this sort of research, whether the federal dollars are paying for it or not. Since the vast majority of labs that do this kind of research do receive some federal funding, very little of this work will be done in this country. Oh well, I guess we'll just sit back and let the Europeans and Asians get ahead of us in medical research. No big deal, right? After all, we've got Viagra!

Let's also not forget that the President is not only ignoring Congress here, but the scientific community, the majority of Americans, the FDA, the NIH, Nancy Reagan, and hell, even Bill Frist supports funding stem-cell research.

There are approx. 500,000 unused frozen embryos right now. There have been about 150 "adoptions". I guess we'll just let the other 499,850 just go to waste because President Bush learned how to use a pen.

This bill was awful. There are better bills that could come out of the Congress. This one was a gift to those on the hill that have been taken to the cleaners by the Media on embryonic stem cell research.

First, public sentiment is corrupted by the likes of Chuck Schumar and Chris Reeve when they prop up people bound to wheel chairs as examples of people that will walk again with more support for EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH, ie the harvesting and destruction of human embryos so a perfectly fine person in a wheel chair could stand up and walk. We don't know if killing human embryos will lead to them walking, but a perfectly healthy human being in a wheel chair MUST WALK according to Chuck Schumar and Chris Reeve.

Obviously there is plenty of legislation that President Bush should have vetoed. This certainly is one of them.

Mantis,
I have a better suggestion: since we have Saddam Hussein in custody now and he is a known bad guy. Let 's use him for real life experiment of aids research for example.
Oops, forgot scientists have shown that adult stem cells are successful in practice. Also you can extract stem cells from placenta. Why the insistence on creating and destroying human embryos?
I guess you are probably upset that the Chinese and NOrth Korean are getting ahead of us in medical research since they are willing to use prisoners for medical experiments.

Lee? Lee, darling:

I know this is a difficult setback for your gender identification hopes ... and dreams. Why don't you have some of your mother's aborted placenta pie and hope your breasts grow naturally?

Lee, with the soft hands, we are not going to nuke Lebanon today either. lol.

Time to confuse the Republican liars with the facts:

www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060719/19stemcellscience.htm

While adult stem cells can give rise only to certain types of cells, embryonic stem cells have the potential to develop into any type of cell in the body. Extracting embryonic stem cells destroys a tiny embryo, which is why many people object to the research and why the president has said he will veto the bill passed this week, which would expand federal funding for research on stem cells extracted from leftover embryos created during in vitro fertilization procedures.

Neandrethals. The late 1800s isn't far enough back - opponents of this measure should be shipped back to the stone age.

Well, James. I'll agree. I certainly wish the President had used his first veto way before this. It is not worthwhile criticizing the President at all on this unless you're someone who has a daily "Bush-bashing quota" you're required to meet. His stance on this issue has always been clear. The folks who are committed to this issue would have had their efforts better served by working for an override. By the way, one of the reasons I have an abiding affection for both the President and Lee is they are both so much alike - they offer no apologies for taking an unpopular stand on an issue they feel strongly about.

Lee,
embryonic stem cells have the potential to develop into any type of cell in the body
--------------------------------------------------
Lee, thanks again for displaying your level of dishonesty (using your terminology).
Adult stem cells have been shown to produce cures already, not just potentials.

BTW, using prisoners for medical experiments have been shown to speed up medical research. So I guess you are all for using bad guys like Saddam to perfrom medical experiments. BTW, China is known to harvest organs from prisoners to help some people in need also. Yup this is worthwhile effort and I guess you are fully support it since you are not from the stone age.

To see the stem cell debate explained with visuals and how the political argument put forth by the President is ultimately an absurd manipulation of the facts...link here:

www.thoughttheater.com

I have a better suggestion: since we have Saddam Hussein in custody now and he is a known bad guy. Let 's use him for real life experiment of aids research for example.

I personally don't care what they (not we, he belongs to the Iraqis, remember?) do with Hussein, but I'm guessing public execution is more likely. Do try to stay on topic though, ok?

Oops, forgot scientists have shown that adult stem cells are successful in practice. Also you can extract stem cells from placenta. Why the insistence on creating and destroying human embryos?

First of all adult stem cells don't have near the potential of hESC research, as you would well know if you actually bothered to learn about things before spouting your opinion. We'll have to wait and see about placental stem cells, that research is extremely new and unproven, and doesn't seem to have the potential that hESCs do. In any case, who said anything about creating more? I was talking about the 500,000 that are just sitting on ice.

I guess you are probably upset that the Chinese and NOrth Korean are getting ahead of us in medical research since they are willing to use prisoners for medical experiments.

No, I'm not. I'm upset because the Europeans, South Koreans, and Japanese are getting ahead of us in medical research because they have sane funding policies not governed by uninformed religiosity. The North Koreans and Chinese may experiment on prisoners, which is disgusting (though you advocated the same thing at the top of your post), but they are still way behind the rest of us.

Anyway, I'm done with you. I can't figure out the ratio of stupid to crazy that makes up your brain, but whatever it is it keeps you from informing yourself and getting beyond your irrelevant lunatic rantings. Hope you find the help you so sorely need.

Lee, the mutability of embryonic cells has also proven to have a rather severe downside. They can and will form other kinds of cells besides the one you are attempting to duplicate. I believe it was scientists in France who found that not only were neural cells in brain tissue duplicated, but bone and blood vessel tissue as well, in the middle of the brain.

So much for a miracle cure.

Mantis,
Bush opened some lines of embryonic stem cells already and people already complain about these cells are bad and so on. So it is just a matter of time before people want to have fresh cells for experimentation and you know that too.
If you talk about potentials, then using prisoners for medical experimentation have a lot of potentials as well. So we should be for it, right?

Sorry that you missed my sarcasm wrt Saddam Hussein suggestion. Why do you find it disgusting to use prisoners or known bad guys like Saddam or the terrorists for medical experimentation if it holds promise to cure Aids for example? You can see with your own eyes that some of these embryos can turn into beautiful children. Don't you have any ethical concern about that?

Using your own standard, you should be afraid that CHina and NOrth Korea will catch up with us in medical research for bad purposes since they are willing to experiments on prisoners. So to catch up, we should adopt the same practice and funding, right? Do you get the point?

I am catching up on my reading on this subject and as near as I can tell that so far, embryonic cell research had produced squat and not even the promise of squat.

Why not spend tax money on stem research that does work and let other countries work on the unproven embryonic cell research?

whatever is discovered will be ultimately be shared in the scientific community. are we just worried who will be first? If so, save our tax money and embryos and let the other countries have at it.

Question for anyone particularly anyone who is unhappy with the President's veto): why is it a problem if another country does outpace the United States in this particular type of research?

A good veto Bush! use it more often.

Bush opened some lines of embryonic stem cells already and people already complain about these cells are bad and so on. So it is just a matter of time before people want to have fresh cells for experimentation and you know that too.

Maybe so, but that has nothing to do with what I said and nothing to do with this legislation. Try reading for a change.

If you talk about potentials, then using prisoners for medical experimentation have a lot of potentials as well. So we should be for it, right?

If you mention the word potential, you must be for anything that has potential, is that what you're saying? Idiotic.

Sorry that you missed my sarcasm wrt Saddam Hussein suggestion. Why do you find it disgusting to use prisoners or known bad guys like Saddam or the terrorists for medical experimentation if it holds promise to cure Aids for example?

I find it disgusting that China and North Korea experiment on or farm organs from prisoners because a) these are living, breathing people, not clumps of cells in a dish, and b) both of those countries have a great deal of political, not criminal, prisoners.

You can see with your own eyes that some of these embryos can turn into beautiful children. Don't you have any ethical concern about that?

Nope. My sperm can turn into beautiful children, yet I have no compunction about wasting it. In any case I'm talking about the embryos that don't turn into beautiful children, but just go to waste.

Using your own standard, you should be afraid that CHina and NOrth Korea will catch up with us in medical research for bad purposes since they are willing to experiments on prisoners.

You're making up my "standard". Take your strawman home.

So to catch up, we should adopt the same practice and funding, right? Do you get the point?

Oh, I get it. It's just completely idiotic. First off, China and North Korea are not achieving any scientific advancements by experimenting on prisoners. Second, we don't need to "catch up" to them when we are way ahead. Third, I have moral problems with experimenting on people (not clumps of cells) against their will. I have no moral problems with using clumps of cells when the owners freely give them to medical research, and they would be thrown away if not used for such. Do you get the point?

"500,000 unused frozen embryos right now. There have been about 150 "adoptions". I guess we'll just let the other 499,850 just go to waste because President Bush learned how to use a pen."

If in-vitro and adoptions weren't so god-damned expensive in this country, nary an embryo would be found..

Quote : "While adult stem cells can give rise only to certain types of cells, embryonic stem cells have the potential to develop into any type of cell in the body." /Quote

Cell transdifferentiation is not a well understood science. Less than ten years ago is was well documented that fat stem cells could never turn into skin or muscle stem cells. Now it's not just known to be possible - there are some treatments being tested regarding such a transformation. Anyone claiming to know the exact limitations of adult stem cells at best does not understand the field, and at worst is a liar.

Mantis,
Your fact is wrong: your sperms cannot be turned into beautiful children. IF left alone, they will waste away in a few days. So why don't we do research using your sperms instead of embryos?

Using your arg, the death row prisoners are going to be killed in any case, so why not experiment on them?

It boils down to the definition of who is considered human, isn't it? Embryos are not human, right? What is the difference between these embryonic cells and your skin cells for example? They are all clump of cells, right?

Now talking about ownership. IF the parents are willing to give up their disabled infants for medical research, you wouldn't have any problems, right? Oh, children don't have rights, the parents can decide for them.

Just look at the language you use to dehumanize these embryos. They are things, properties to be used. They are just clumps of cells, so you can create and destroy them for medical research.

So what is your problem if other countries want to get ahead in medical research by creating embryo farms for medical search? Why not human cloning for medical research?

Mantis
quote :
Oh, I get it. It's just completely idiotic. First off, China and North Korea are not achieving any scientific advancements by experimenting on prisoners. Second, we don't need to "catch up" to them when we are way ahead. Third, I have moral problems with experimenting on people (not clumps of cells) against their will./quote

Actually, there have been some significant progresses in technology coming from such (doubtably ethical) experiments. The best known one is from Nazi Germany, which gave us the majority of our current knowledge about how the human body deals with hypothermia from cold water through such testing. China is rumored to be testing AIDs-related technology on their prisoners, which could lead to significant progress in the field (although I don't think it's worth the ethical price).

And do you really want to let the government, either in the form of George Bush or Hillary Clinton, define when someone is a 'clump of cells' that can be destroyed without any ethical concerns?

Sigh . . . I just don't get his stance on human life.

Humans are animals of contradiction, we constantly allow our cultural and religious morals and values to steer our decisions away from the logical solutions which promise to increase the quality of human life. Culture and religion have no place in an advanced civilization and global economy. Culture is the result of isolation and religion is the result of barbaric human civilizations. Humans today are susceptible to the cultures and religions of past civilizations even though culture and religion are not necessarily aligned with today's civilizations.

Today's civilizations and advanced civilizations of the future are and will be susceptible to the human tendency of logic (i.e. math, science, and the advancement and procurement of information). Culture and religion have little ability to supply logic.

I wonder how long culture and religion will continue to survive and I wonder how long countries and their people will allow culture and religion to stifle their quest for power and their determination to become an advanced civilization (to give their people security and luxury).

I realize there is some question as to what it means to be human, and there is some question as to what constitutes the quality of life, and that some may think the answers are important when debating the roles that culture and religion play for humanity. Any answers are temporal. They are much less important to the debate of what is human than they are to the debate of what was human. What makes humans humans is not the human tendencies we observe today.

Culture and religion are a dying human tendency and I hope to live to see the day when they no longer dominate the decisions of our leaders and ultimately our people.

Your fact is wrong: your sperms cannot be turned into beautiful children.

Sure they can. More is needed of course, but they have that potential. Same as embryos in a dish, or do you think a human being will just grow out of that dish if unfrozen?

So why don't we do research using your sperms instead of embryos?

Well, we can't extract stem cells from sperm, as far as I know. However if someone wants to do research on it, I'll give it up.

Using your arg, the death row prisoners are going to be killed in any case, so why not experiment on them?

Well, I don't think we should have the death penalty in the first place, for starters. Second, it would violate the Constitution. You know, the whole cruel and unusual punishment deal?

It boils down to the definition of who is considered human, isn't it?

Sure.

Embryos are not human, right?

Well, they're not human beings. They are human cells.

What is the difference between these embryonic cells and your skin cells for example? They are all clump of cells, right?

Not too much difference in my mind.

Now talking about ownership. IF the parents are willing to give up their disabled infants for medical research, you wouldn't have any problems, right? Oh, children don't have rights, the parents can decide for them.

Another idiotic argument. Children do have rights, goofball. Embryos don't.

Just look at the language you use to dehumanize these embryos. They are things, properties to be used.

Legally, the embryos are owned by the couples that produced them. Sorry, but that is the state of the law. I do believe they are merely things. If you don't, go ahead and fight to give embryos the right to vote.

They are just clumps of cells, so you can create and destroy them for medical research.

Once again (are you really this dense?), the embryos are already being created for IVF. I'm not talking about making new ones, just using the ones that are unused. That's three times I've told you this.

So what is your problem if other countries want to get ahead in medical research by creating embryo farms for medical search? Why not human cloning for medical research?

We've already let other countries get ahead with many types of scientific and technological innovation. I don't want to see that continue because of boneheaded policies. Is that so hard to understand?

As Lee has pointed out, the Neanderthals have struck again.

What's particularly striking is that so-called "pro-life" conservatives care more about frozen embryos (that will almost invariably get thrown out anyway) than about living, breathing human beings.

Bush, The King of the Morons Who Elected Him, once asked, "Is our children learning yet?" The answer is clearly "No!"

Jay
Culture and religion are a dying human tendency and I hope to live to see the day when they no longer dominate the decisions of our leaders and ultimately our people.
--------------------------------------------------
If I understand your point correctly, your dream came true already. The communist utopias are strictly atheistic and no religions are allowed. BTW, the Nazi also held the same conviction: humans are simply animals. They also believed in social evolution. So they tried to build a society of superrace where the inferiors are to be discarded for the betterment of the whole society.

These are real examples of atheistic utopia where culture/religion was not allowed to dominate the decisions of the leaders and the people.

I'm not sure if I understand this whole issue.

If there are a few hundred thousand fetuses on ice that will perish regrardless of what's done with them, opponents of the research would rather they be thrown out with the rest of the bio-waste rather be used for potential cures?

It seems so simple. Use the embryos for research, when the stockpile is expended, then decide whether or not to allow continuance of new research.

Actually, there have been some significant progresses in technology coming from such (doubtably ethical) experiments. The best known one is from Nazi Germany, which gave us the majority of our current knowledge about how the human body deals with hypothermia from cold water through such testing.

I didn't say it can't happen, just that it isn't happening. On hypothermia, that knowledge could have been obtained through other, more ethical means.

China is rumored to be testing AIDs-related technology on their prisoners, which could lead to significant progress in the field (although I don't think it's worth the ethical price).

Ah, rumors. If true, I don't think it's worth that price either.

And do you really want to let the government, either in the form of George Bush or Hillary Clinton, define when someone is a 'clump of cells' that can be destroyed without any ethical concerns?

No, I want the government, in the form of Congress, to define when someone is a clump of cells that can be destroyed based on the recommendations of the FDA and the NIH. Oh, wait, they did that. Bush vetoed it.

Who do you want to define it? Religious leaders? I'll take the scientists, thank you very much.

Mantis,
Let me explain a little further for you. An embryo in the womb will become an infant, then a child, then an adult. A sperm in a womb will waste away in a few days.

Again, why should children have right? The parents have to care for them and take responsibility for them, right? Following the logic of your arg, the embryo has no right because it was in the very early process of human development. So children should have less right as human than adults, esp the parents.

Your skin cells cannot become children no matter what. Unfortunately you cannot see the difference. If personal opinion is all that matters, then why is your opinion should have more weight than mine? SO if Hitler wants to build a superrace and decide that the disabled, esp children, are not fully human? So he can terminate them. Who are you to claim that Hitler was wrong? The Nazis accomplished real progresses by doing experiments on prisoners.

BTW, if the laws allow people to kill their own disabled children, you wouldn't have problem with it right?

If you are concerned about progress in medical research, then why not trying to catch up with them by experimenting on bad guys like Saddam and the terrorists for example?