|
|
Post by timfarney on Oct 27, 2006 9:30:50 GMT -5
No. It's not. The current debate is about the use of embryos already collected and frozen, that will eventually be discarded. I know that's a fine point to someone who is morally opposed to the use of human embryos for any scientific purpose, and I understand the slippery slope argument, but there it is. It is not like the debate is about soliciting women to become pregnant just to have embryos sucked out of them for research, though some stem cell opponents have characterized it that way. On the other hand, it's not like the Bush administration has outlawed stem cell research, either. They have just severely limited federal funding for it. And that has been misrepresented as well.
The research will get done. There is just far too much to be gained - medically and financially. But in all likelihood, other Western nations will come to market with it first.
Tim
|
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 27, 2006 9:33:57 GMT -5
Severely limited federal funding?
There was no federal funding for it prior to the Bush admin!
|
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 27, 2006 9:36:24 GMT -5
This excerpt from the white house website:
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."
-- George W. Bush
Federal funding of research using existing embryonic stem cell lines is consistent with the President's belief in the fundamental value and sanctity of human life. The President's decision reflects his fundamental commitment to preserving the value and sanctity of human life and his desire to promote vital medical research. The President's decision will permit federal funding of research using the more than 60 existing stem cell lines that have already been derived, but will not sanction or encourage the destruction of additional human embryos. The embryos from which the existing stem cell lines were created have already been destroyed and no longer have the possibility of further development as human beings. Federal funding of medical research on these existing stem cell lines will promote the sanctity of life " without undermining it " and will allow scientists to explore the potential of this research to benefit the lives of millions of people who suffer from life destroying diseases.
Federal funds will only be used for research on existing stem cell lines that were derived:
(1) with the informed consent of the donors;
(2) from excess embryos created solely for reproductive purposes; and
(3) without any financial inducements to the donors.
In order to ensure that federal funds are used to support only stem cell research that is scientifically sound, legal, and ethical, the NIH will examine the derivation of all existing stem cell lines and create a registry of those lines that satisfy this criteria. More than 60 existing stem cell lines from genetically diverse populations around the world are expected to be available for federally-funded research.
No federal funds will be used for:
(1) the derivation or use of stem cell lines derived from newly destroyed embryos;
(2) the creation of any human embryos for research purposes; or
(3) the cloning of human embryos for any purpose.
_________
ie: it's a compromise.
|
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 27, 2006 9:38:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 27, 2006 9:40:51 GMT -5
From what I understand, that potential is the very thing that the religious right is trying to fight in the debate that they claim is mischaracterized by Fox in the ad -- that the right to human cloning is guaranteed in the MO legislation in question.
It's not a "slippery slope". It's a disagreement. One side say that it believes that a fertilized egg represents human life and the other side says it does not.
The slippery slope would only enter into the equation as those who don't believe that a fertilized egg represents human life might subsequently still find it distasteful to harvest fertialzed eggs for the expressed purpose of experimentation.
|
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 27, 2006 9:42:47 GMT -5
Note that research outside of those 60 lines is not prohibited; federal funding for them is.
Once the facts are known, the "Bush opposes stem-cell research" line seems like hysteria.
The real issue has become a state issue, with some states having anti-cloning/embryonic research bills on the table.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 27, 2006 9:43:05 GMT -5
by the way...
Did the Missouri counter ad (the ad put out to counter the Fox Ad) really film Patricia Heaton with green skin as it appeared on the CBS evening news with Couric? Heaton was so green -- it looked like she had been made up for Halloween.
|
|
|
|
Post by John B on Oct 27, 2006 9:55:07 GMT -5
As a resident of Missouri, I haven't seen either ad actually on Missouri television - I've only seen the Fox ad on CNN and the web, and the Heaton/Caviezel ad on the web.
|
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Oct 27, 2006 9:55:46 GMT -5
It was a compromise, Evan. So is what is being suggested by serious proponents of expansion, in my understanding. They are suggesting that to have many more lines to use in the research (something researchers have said is critical), we should take cells from embryos, also derived:
(1) with the informed consent of the donors;
(2) from excess embryos created solely for reproductive purposes; and
(3) without any financial inducements to the donors.
Which are no longer wanted by their donors and will be discarded if not used for the research. Perhaps I've misunderstood, I haven't kept up with the issue all that well, but that's my take on it. Not allowing these embryos to be used in federally-funded research is severely limiting the funding of stem cell research in the view of those who think the Bush compromise fell short.
Tim
|
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Oct 27, 2006 10:07:48 GMT -5
"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist"
One of the issues is that those "60 stem cell lines" were actually less than half that number.
A month after Bush announced that there were those 60 lines, his Health and Human Services director testified that there were really only 24 to 25 lines that could actually be used for research. Makes you wonder why Bush said 60, doesn't it?
By May of 2003, the number had dropped to 11 and all were potentially contaminated by viruses as a result of being developed with mouse feeder cells. Therefore, they may not be appropriate for human use because of the potential for infection.
Addressing this problem, scientists at Johns Hopkins recently announced the discovery of a method for developing uninfected stem cell lines on feeder cells from adult humans. Scientists cannot get federal funds to work with new cell lines developed with this method, however, because President Bush’s policy prohibits the use of lines developed after April 2001 despite the fact that they aren't embryonic.
So can we finally stop repeating the "60 lines" line? It wasn't true when Bush said it and it is even less true now.
|
|
|
|
Post by chicagobob on Oct 27, 2006 10:08:16 GMT -5
Rush hurled a bomb by attacking Michael Fox's behavior. Nothing like a good fireworks show.
|
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Oct 27, 2006 10:56:01 GMT -5
Rush hurled a bomb by attacking Michael Fox's behavior. Nothing like a good fireworks show. Yep. Entertaining for the troops, I suppose. But Dems everywhere should be sending him thank you notes. Tim |
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 27, 2006 11:01:06 GMT -5
Nothing inhibits using any line they want with private funding. Hint: There's a ton of private funding for this right now.
And again: It was never funded pre-Bush
|
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Oct 27, 2006 11:24:14 GMT -5
Actually it was, but I'll get to that later.
The law states that nothing used in stem cell research can be funded with government funds. This is a huge problem because hat rule has been interpreted to include office supplies, furniture, lab equipment, electric bills, etc. If a lab has federal funding for some other form of research (and most do), they would have to create an entirely segregated lab from the ground up in order to do stem cell research with private funds in order to not endanger the federal funds for all the other projects they might have.
This has made it almost impossible to do stem cell research in the US. No problem for patients since there is a bunch of it going on all over the rest of the world. Many of our scientists are now overseas working on this issue.
Whether there was funding prior to the BUsh administration isn't a real issue either. It also isn't true since Clinton funded it for a year before he changed his mind.
In 1973 a moratorium was placed on government funding for human embryo research. In 1988 a NIH panel voted 19 to 2 in favor of government funding. In 1990, Congress voted to override the moratorium on government funding of embryonic stem cell research, which was vetoed by President George Bush. President Clinton lifted the ban, but changed his mind the following year after public outcry. Congress banned federal funding in 1995. In 1998 DHHS Secretary Sullivan extended the moratorium. In 2000, President Bill Clinton allowed funding of research on cells derived from aborted human fetuses, but not from embryonic cells. On August 9, 2001, President George W. Bush announced his decision to allow Federal funding of research only on existing human embryonic stem cell lines created prior to his announcement. His concern was to not foster the continued destruction of living human embryos. In 2004, both houses of Congress have asked President George W. Bush to review his policy on embryonic stem cell research. President George W. Bush released a statement reiterating his moral qualms about creating human embryos to destroy them, and refused to reverse the federal policy banning government funding of ESC research (other than for ESC lines established before the funding ban), despite the fact that those lines were no longer of any use.
So the issue isn't did they fund it before Bush (which they did) but should we be funding it at all. Most people in this country think we should. Congress thinks we should. the only person holding it back now is Bush.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2006 11:29:57 GMT -5
I'm not suprised that the Right is attacking Michael J. Fox, as they have no sense of empathy. They asssume that Fox (probably directed by Nancy Pelosi and the other Liberal plotters) was faking or otherwise manipulating his appearance, and this before ever reseearching anything about Parkinson's Disease. They assume that this was faked because it's something THEY would do as a political tactic, so they assume that anyone else would do the same. Fortunately for them (maybe), they don't seem to be rallying around the Fat Drug Addict, as he's probably already cost them some votes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Oct 27, 2006 11:41:13 GMT -5
As to the original thread topic, Rush is Rush. I don't think he was mocking Fox. I think he was demonstrating what Fox was doing. I also see Rush so dep into the current political damage control methodology that he can't help but do what he always does when faced with someone who is either:
1. Helping the political opposition or
2. Hurting his political side.
Standard Operational procedure goes as follows:
1. Attack the messenger. If the Messenger is an inherently sympathetic character (mother of dead soldier, multiple amputee veteran, widow of 9/11 victims, or Parkinson's sufferer) then attack them for using their "victemhood" for political purposes.
2. Repeat
Problem is it makes you come across as a real rat bastard and most people don't like voting for rat bastards. Or we can at least hope.
|
|
|
|
Post by SteveO on Oct 27, 2006 12:19:45 GMT -5
I'd hate to have that man's karma. He's a hateful person. Asshole. I have to agree with Renee'...... He is an Addict in all sense of the label...He is self-centered arrogant, and controlling (in his mind) He tries to hard to belittle everyone around him.... (makes me wonder what he is trying to hide) Like he's grander than his fellow man.... He never admits that he has a problem, that everyone else does, and are at fault...... This man has no compassion what so ever for mankind... But, people listen to him and support his way of thinking... So for that, the market allows this type behavior, After all it's about the Ratings and Money It makes my heart sad.... |
|
|
|
Post by TDR on Oct 27, 2006 12:31:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by davidhanners on Oct 27, 2006 13:06:32 GMT -5
In short answer to the question in the thread title, yes, it was definitely mocking.
Of course, there's a bit of sad irony in all this. Limbaugh -- who had his hearing restored through scientific breakthroughs in medicine -- wants to deny other folks the possibility that their diseases or infirmities might be cured through discoveries made in a science which promises great breakthroughs. And he wants to deny that just because he doesn't like the science.
The ultimate, of course, is that I'd be willing to bet the research that led to Limbaugh's hearing apparatus had quite a bit of federal funding behind it.
|
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 27, 2006 13:07:13 GMT -5
I knew I could depend on you, Tramp. I'm sorry various sides of this issue have chosen to politicize this to such an extreme. There is so much misinformation from all sides it's disheartening. I often wondered why Bush indulged that compromise. He made the "issue fighters" on both sides angry without giving the more practical ones in the center something more of substance than he did. So they got mad too.
I have no problem with making 'em mad if you're standing on solid principles...but not like this.
|
|
