Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill

[msnicolea]

Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill for a Second Time; once again, he puts ideology above saving lives.

After a bipartisan effort that led to the passage of the stem cell research bill in both the House and Senate, George W. Bush vetoed this legislation that would have eased restraints on federally funded embryonic stem cell research, utilizing donated human embryos that would otherwise be destroyed. This is the second time George Bush has used his veto power to override a measure that could have led to treatment of debilitating illnesses and life-threatening diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, heart disease, spinal cord injury, and diabetes.

"With this veto, George Bush has proved once again that his allegiance is to his extremist base and not to the millions of caregivers and families who need this research," says NOW President Kim Gandy. "Women are the majority of caregivers in our society, and this veto is an outright slap in the face for women who take on the every day burden of caring for family members who are ill or dying," said Gandy.

There is enormous public support for stem cell research, and that is why Congress passed the measure. George Bush's veto demonstrates that he has become even more out of touch with the country. Even the National Institutes of Health acknowledge that human embryos are the most promising of all the stem cells to offer renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases.

We were on the cusp of extending medical research, and with a stroke of the pen, George Bush took it away," says Gandy. "This is even more reason to change the face of politics. We need a government and a leader who considers the health and safety of women, girls and families."

[Allegra]

are we surprized?

[Niobe]

What's the chance of Congress getting a two-thirds majority to override the veto? Seems like it could be possible.

[MLA]

What's the chance of Congress getting a two-thirds majority to override the veto? Seems like it could be possible.

I really, really hope so.

[Jaycee]

What's the chance of Congress getting a two-thirds majority to override the veto? Seems like it could be possible. If that were to happen, does anyone know how soon they would vote? Is it immediate ?

[Rosebud]

There's a special place in hell reserved for GWB.

There is no question that this research would do a lot of good for millions of people who are suffering in this country. Bush is a horrible person for putting his personal zealotry above the needs and desires of a large majority of US citizens.

My DH has MS, and stem cell research might hold the answers needed to finally provide a cure for this terrible disease. It is heartwrenching to think that he might lose years of his life because our President was busy pandering to his base. I just hope our next president will have the good sense to see this (or a similar) bill through.

[sea74]

Just because Bush Vetoed the bill DOES NOT mean the research can't happen. It simply means the U.S. Gov isn't paying for it.

Private money can pay for the research. Pharm. companies can pay for the research. And, other countries can do the research.

[MLA]

Just because Bush Vetoed the bill DOES NOT mean the research can't happen. It simply means the U.S. Gov isn't paying for it.

Private money can pay for the research. Pharm. companies can pay for the research. And, other countries can do the research.

Yeah, that argument's been tried before on these boards and shot down by far more eloquent posters than I. Suffice it to say, without government funding, the research won't happen in this country. If it does happen, it will happen very slowly because it doesn't have federal funding. Federal funds are of key importance in getting major research done in this country.

[LyLMyssChaos]

Okay, I'll be the odd person out here and say that I'm glad Bush vetoed this bill.
He has only issued 3 vetoes in his entire Presidency, 2 of them being in regards to Stem Cell funding, so that shows you exactly how he feels about it.

Stem cell research crosses an ethical line and public funds should not be used for it. There are plenty of people in the private sector that claim to feel so strongly about this, let them use their money to support it.

I think that perhaps we need to start investigating the other options such as cord blood cells and adult stem cells.

Also, so many people are complaining about how we need to cut spending. How could he authorize a bill in support of giving federal funds to this while trying to cut back spending in other areas?

[wine_o_girlie]

What's the chance of Congress getting a two-thirds majority to override the veto? Seems like it could be possible.

I believe I heard that the Senate is close to a 2/3 majority on this but the House isn't even close.

[wine_o_girlie]

I think that perhaps we need to start investigating the other options such as cord blood cells and adult stem cells.

Also, so many people are complaining about how we need to cut spending. How could he authorize a bill in support of giving federal funds to this while trying to cut back spending in other areas?

GWB is trying to cut back spending in other areas? Wow, that would be a first. I have an idea on how to cut spending - pull the hell out of Iraq. ASAP.

[LyLMyssChaos]

GWB is trying to cut back spending in other areas? Wow, that would be a first. I have an idea on how to cut spending - pull the hell out of Iraq. ASAP.

If we do that prematurely, it leaves them open and ready for another horrific dictator to come in and take over. We then wind up back there in 5-10 years trying to yet again clean up what should have been finished previously? I don't think so. I'd rather see things finished properly this time.

And I didn't say he was cutting spending in other areas, but they should be. However, I don't agree that the War is at the top of the list.

[bookworm]

And he actually wouldn't have to increase spending---from what I've read, a major problem with the ban is that lab equipment that was purchased with federal funds (for other research) cannot be used to research stem cells. The equipment is a sunk cost, and would go a long way toward expanding research (because setting up a lab is a big capital expense).

And as for it being one of a only a few vetos, that's because he signs laws but adds signing statements saying he's going to ignore them! (Which actually bothers me a whole lot more than an outright veto.)

[MLA]

Stem cell research crosses an ethical line and public funds should not be used for it. There are plenty of people in the private sector that claim to feel so strongly about this, let them use their money to support it.

Here's the thing, LMC: The vast majority of the American public doesn't seem to think it's crossing an ethical line. The vast majority of the American public wants this research to happen. Unfortunately, this president couldn't give a shit about what the American people want or need. And since he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected and since his approval rating's at an all-time low, he has nothing to lose by ignoring what his country wants.

Of course, we've already hashed through all this in the first stem-cell research thread that was started when Bush vetoed the bill the first time. You're clearly not going to change your mind, and that's fine. But the fact is we live in a democracy, and you're in the minority. I hope that the majority will prevail in this case -- and soon.

[MLA]

And as for it being one a only a few vetos, that's because he signs laws but adds signing statements saying he's going to ignore them! (Which actually bothers me a whole lot more than an outright veto.)


Word. :cool:

[LyLMyssChaos]

And he actually wouldn't have to increase spending---from what I've read, a major problem with the ban is that lab equipment that was purchased with federal funds (for other research) cannot be used to research stem cells. The equipment is a sunk cost, and would go a long way toward expanding research (because setting up a lab is a big capital expense).


So basically, the bill shouldn't be to allow government funding for stem cell research. Instead, they should have a bill that says they will allow government funded labs to research stem cells? Do I understand that properly? If so, perhaps there is a common ground that could be reached. Like maybe saying to the labs that they will allow government purchased equipment to be used, but that the private sector needs to pay for staffing and other related expenses?

[LyLMyssChaos]

But the fact is we live in a democracy, and you're in the minority. I hope that the majority will prevail in this case -- and soon.

So does that rule only apply in this case? Because I have seen that argument tore to shreds in regards to other topics around here. I don't want to derail this thread, but I just thought I'd put that thought out there.

[batgirl]

I think that perhaps we need to start investigating the other options such as cord blood cells and adult stem cells.
I love how people keep using this argument. Talk about a big waste of time and money. Firstly, why spend millions and millions of dollars on research trying to find an adequate substitute for embryonic stem cells? Its already proven that embryonic stem cells are vastly superior to stem cells derived from other sources. Let's spend this money trying to find treatments and cures instead of more inferior substitutes. Secondly, no federal funding is scaring many scientists away from even working with stem cells. If you don't get a big federal grant (NIH or NSF) you won't get tenure at your institution. New upcoming scientists are not risking it. Another reason why the "no one is preventing scientists from working on embryonic stem cells, just federal funds paying for it" doesn't fly.

Also, so many people are complaining about how we need to cut spending. How could he authorize a bill in support of giving federal funds to this while trying to cut back spending in other areas?
The Iraq war costs $200 million dollars per day. Do you really want to get in a pissing contest about where to cut spending?

[MLA]

So does that rule only apply in this case? Because I have seen that argument tore to shreds in regards to other topics around here. I don't want to derail this thread, but I just thought I'd put that thought out there.

No, it doesn't only apply to this case. When living in a democracy, if the vast majority of people think that something should happen, then it probably should happen. I know that there are dangers associated w/that (after all, the Nazis were democratically elected), but that's the risk you take living in a democracy. In this case the support for this research is so overwhelming that I just don't see how a democratically elected official can ignore it.

[bookworm]

So does that rule only apply in this case? Because I have seen that argument tore to shreds in regards to other topics around here. I don't want to derail this thread, but I just thought I'd put that thought out there.


I was really hoping you wouldn't go there :), but I saw it coming. I think majority opinion matters a lot in a democracy, except when we're talking about human/civil rights issues. Which is why I can appreciate that this gets complicated if you honestly believe (as some do) that "human life begins at conception" whether it's in a lab or otherwise.

[msnicolea]

What batgirl said.

Bush is placing his personal views above overwhleming evidence and support from the scientific community--and that's unacceptable.

And LMC, am I to understand that it is the job of the US to depose of every unsavory dictator? Cuz if that's the case, we'd better get rolling. Here's a list:

Omar Al-Bashir (Sudan), Kim Jong II (North Korea),Than Shwe (Burma / Myanmar), Aleksandr Lukashenko (Belarus), Seyed Ali Khamane'i (Iran), Muammar al-Qaddafi (Libya), Isaias Afwerki (Eritrea) and on and on and on. . .

[ysolde]

Grrr. As someone whose life is directly affected by this issue, all I can say is GWB has made a mistake, and I will have to live with the consequences, the pain, and the frustration.

Watch a child who cannot play football with his friends, who is taunted in the schoolyard for the braces on her legs and the walker that keeps her upright; watch a mother who wants nothing more than to pick up her child and spin her round, watch a husband who wants nothing more than to spend one day of his life without pain, and then tell me that throwing away blastocysts is more ethical than using them to better our lives.

[greenbunny]

So, so frustrating, to all of us affected by genetic disease. :( If only there could be an agreement on how to obtain the stem cells to allow this research to continue. I'd definitely donate eggs to the cause.

[sea74]

As I rule, I usually avoid these types of threads because they get ugly fast, but here I go ...

The vast majority of the American public wants this research to happen. Unfortunately, this president couldn't give a shit about what the American people want or need. And since he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected and since his approval rating's at an all-time low, he has nothing to lose by ignoring what his country wants. From election 1 he said he was against ESCR so to say he's vetoing it now because he doesn't have run for reelection isn't accurate. And knowing he felt this way the majority of the people STILL voted for him. I did hear today that 65% of the people want the research, but I guess they should have thought more about that when they voted in 2000 and 2004 because that was his platform.

Its already proven that embryonic stem cells are vastly superior to stem cells derived from other sources. Really? Because I've heard otherwise. And I'm not being snarky. Seriously, let me know where I need to go to read the info. It would not change my mind, but I'd like to read it.

he Iraq war costs $200 million dollars per day.
I highly doubt that is the actual per-day cost.

I think majority opinion matters a lot in a democracy, except when we're talking about human/civil rights issues. Which is why I can appreciate that this gets complicated if you honestly believe (as some do) that "human life begins at conception" whether it's in a lab or otherwise. I agree with the statement about the majority. I'm also of the belief that life begins at conception. I believe when that egg and sperm meet, it is a life with a soul and a purpose. So I can not support the dismantling of human life for research. To me it's just SO wrong. I'm not saying that to change anyone's mind here, but so that you might gain some understanding to why some people are opposed to it. To me it is exactly the same as killing someone to take their kidney to give it someone in need of a transplant.

[LyLMyssChaos]

So, so frustrating, to all of us affected by genetic disease. :(

Not all of us. :(

[MLA]

I agree with the statement about the majority. I'm also of the belief that life begins at conception. I believe when that egg and sperm meet, it is a life with a soul and a purpose. So I can not support the dismantling of human life for research. To me it's just SO wrong. I'm not saying that to change anyone's mind here, but so that you might gain some understanding to why some people are opposed to it. To me it is exactly the same as killing someone to take their kidney to give it someone in need of a transplant.


I get WHY some people are opposed to it. I always have gotten that. I believe, though, that it's far more unethical to propigate the suffering of living, breathing human beings than to use what blastocysts for research. I don't advocate creating embryos exclusively for research, but the fact is that there are THOUSANDS of embryos out there that have been created through IVF that are going to waste. Isn't it more disrespectful to the life that you consider these embryos to possess to just throw them away rather than use them for the betterment of humanity? And what's your view on IVF? Are you okay w/that even though many embryos are created and destroyed in the process?

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

How about this: so, so frustrating to the majority of us affected by genetic disease.

:(

[batgirl]

As I rule, I usually avoid these types of threads because they get ugly fast, but here I go ...
I see why you typically stay out of them...

And knowing he (bush) felt this way the majority of the people STILL voted for him.
Actually, the majority of people voted for Gore.

Really? Because I've heard otherwise. And I'm not being snarky. Seriously, let me know where I need to go to read the info. It would not change my mind, but I'd like to read it.
Really?, right back at ya. I really don't have the time to post all the links, but pretty much any scientific paper, news article, etc will support what I said. Just google it and you'll see I'm right. In fact, they just mentioned this very fact on ABC news last night, of all places.


I highly doubt that is the actual per-day cost.
Sad but true... this is from msnbc...

One thing is certain about the Iraq war: It has cost a lot more than advertised. In fact, the tab grows by at least $200 million each and every day.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/

I agree with the statement about the majority. I'm also of the belief that life begins at conception. I believe when that egg and sperm meet, it is a life with a soul and a purpose. So I can not support the dismantling of human life for research. To me it's just SO wrong. I'm not saying that to change anyone's mind here, but so that you might gain some understanding to why some people are opposed to it. To me it is exactly the same as killing someone to take their kidney to give it someone in need of a transplant.
So it is better to dispose of unwanted blastocysts in the autoclave? Cause that's where they're going.

[blueskygirl]

Grrr. As someone whose life is directly affected by this issue, all I can say is GWB has made a mistake, and I will have to live with the consequences, the pain, and the frustration.

Watch a child who cannot play football with his friends, who is taunted in the schoolyard for the braces on her legs and the walker that keeps her upright; watch a mother who wants nothing more than to pick up her child and spin her round, watch a husband who wants nothing more than to spend one day of his life without pain, and then tell me that throwing away blastocysts is more ethical than using them to better our lives.

Reading that brought tears to my eyes. I did cry when I heard that Bush has done it again, putting clumps of cells above the lives of all the people you described. The frustration just got to me. I have 2 diseases that could potentially be cured if stem cell research was actually given a real chance (federal funding, in other words). It is such a slap in the face from Bush and every single individual who voted for him knowing he intended to veto bills like this - those of us who would benefit from the research have in effect been told that our lives are worth less than what will now become nothing more than medical waste.

[wine_o_girlie]

So I can not support the dismantling of human life for research. .

You are aware that this ban affects embryos that were already going to be destroyed, right? That doesn't change your mind?

LMC, I was about to go into a long schpiel about the "but Saddam was a bad, bad man" theory on why we want to war but Nicole said it all. So, word to Nicole.

[skyblu]

What batgirl said.
And LMC, am I to understand that it is the job of the US to depose of every unsavory dictator? Cuz if that's the case, we'd better get rolling. Here's a list:

Omar Al-Bashir (Sudan), Kim Jong II (North Korea),Than Shwe (Burma / Myanmar), Aleksandr Lukashenko (Belarus), Seyed Ali Khamane'i (Iran), Muammar al-Qaddafi (Libya), Isaias Afwerki (Eritrea) and on and on and on. . .

OMG, I love you. Seriously, who died and named GWB God? This man is the freaking devil, for real. I can't protest too vocally since I'm not a US citizen, but sheesh!

[LyLMyssChaos]

What batgirl said.
Omar Al-Bashir (Sudan), Kim Jong II (North Korea),Than Shwe (Burma / Myanmar), Aleksandr Lukashenko (Belarus), Seyed Ali Khamane'i (Iran), Muammar al-Qaddafi (Libya), Isaias Afwerki (Eritrea) and on and on and on. . .

If it were up to me and we had the means to do so, then yes, we should go after these people.

[skyblu]

If it were up to me and we had the means to do so, then yes, we should go after these people.


LMC, with all due respect, in many foreign countries it is believed that Bush is not much better than those people named. Would it be okay for some random country's Armed Forces to decide it was up to them to bomb the US to kingdom come in the name of "rescuing us"? I don't think so.

Back to stem cells, I am appalled at GWB's decision (but what else is new). Ysolde's post brought tears to my eyes. WHY is it better to destroy the embryos rather than use the stem cells for research that could save lives? To those opposed to the research, you DO realize that we're not talking about embryos that would otherwise be implanted and develop into fetuses, right? They are being destroyed, either way. So is it not a little better if a LOT of good comes from it?

[sublime311]

There is no question that this research would do a lot of good for millions of people who are suffering in this country. Bush is a horrible person for putting his personal zealotry above the needs and desires of a large majority of US citizens.
Amen.

[mrs_pell]

I'm totally staying out of discussion about the war, but what the heck...why not join in on the stem cell discussion. ;)

This is probably going to be hard for some people (who have known me for a while) to believe, but I've actually changed my mind on this. And, because I'm feeling so honest right now, it's because I was totally misunderstanding the process before that I was against it. I'd fallen into the trap that a lot of conservatives have laid out there that scientists are "creating life to destroy it in the name of science." That, I had a problem with. But, when I started actually reading up on it myself (what a novel idea...), was when I realized that I'd been wrong. We are NOT creating these embryos just for the science. They're already there...why shouldn't they be used for something worthwhile instead of being completely destroyed? I'd also been under the impression that these cells were coming from aborted fetuses, but that's also not the case (at least as far as I know now)...they're "leftovers" from IVF. If I'm not against IVF (and I'm not), then I don't know why I'd be against this.

I also work in adult inpatient rehab...so I treat patients with spinal cord injuries, MS, brain injuries, and strokes. Even so, when I wasn't understanding things the right way, I was still against using the embryonic cells. Now that I do understand where these cells are coming from, I am totally supportive of it, and have written my congress-people to encourage them to support it as well.

I'm truly disappointed in Bush. Yes, I voted for him, and I do still believe he was better than the alternative, but there are a lot of things I don't agree with that he's doing/done. This is one of them. Hopefully Congress can get together the 2/3 vote and override this veto.

(Wow...sorry this was so long!)

[skyblu]

mrs_pell, I totally commend you for educating yourself further on a controversial issue!

I understand some people are against "creating life" in a lab, period. But then those same people would have to be against IVF and anything of the sort (and I know, some are). What I don't get is those who are okay with IVF but not okay with stem-cell research.

[DansGirl]

I haven't made up my mind on this issue (I even think I posted that in the previous thread on this topic). I'm having a really hard time with this topic.

As a pro-life woman, I'm totally against the idea of creating new embryos for research. Okay, fine. But what about those embryos that are going to be discarded anyway? This is the issue I'm still dealing with. For some reason, the argument that they'll be destroyed, therefore lets use them for research, just seems a little too convienant (wrong choice of word, I know). Isn't the person who provided the embryos making the decision whether to destroy/store/or use said embryos? That is that person's decision - on their conscience. What I'm grabbling with is the use of federal funds to destory potential human life.

I know this post doesn't add much to the discussion. Not everything is black and white - I have a hard time dealing with this gray area and am really trying to learn as much as I can. Therefore, I appreciate these discussions immensely. Gives me something to talk about with DH at night (who, interestingly suffers from a genetic disease and is against using embryonic stems cells for research).

[ysolde]

I remember seven years ago, the excited phone call from my father: we may see progress in neurological conditions in your lifetime, sweetheart! He was happier than I was! He was the parent of a child who had bene through a lot; he had seen his daughter go through pain he could not begin to describe, and there had been nothing he could do to take the pain away. He had prayed, he had taken me to the best doctors, he had begged G-d to switch places with me, and now, for the first time, hope for his beautiful, talented, daughter. My father believes in forgivenes, but I am not sure he has ever forgiven Bush for taking our family's hope away.

[DansGirl]

skyblu: Are federal funds used for IVF research? If you don't know, no biggie. Just curious if that's come up before in discussion. Thanks.

[skyblu]

DansGirl, actually, that's a really good question that I don't know the answer to. I mean, obviously, I know that the actual procedure is paid for either by the patient or by their insurance. But the research that led to the development of the procedure? I don't know.

[chefker]

If it were up to me and we had the means to do so, then yes, we should go after these people.

(bolding mine) That's just the thing - we don't really have the means to continue funding the current war, as it is.


These embryos are potentially going to be destroyed anyway - seriously, what's the alternative to using discarded IVF embryos for research? Find donor wombs to host said embryos? :confused:

[MLA]

These embryos are potentially going to be destroyed anyway - seriously, what's the alternative to using discarded IVF embryos for research? Find donor wombs to host said embryos? :confused:

I can think of a few people who I'd volunteer for that job. ;)

Seriously, you have a great point. And if posters here are so up in arms about the destruction of potential life, then perhaps they should volunteer to be incubators for these precious beings.

[mrs_pell]

I understand some people are against "creating life" in a lab, period. But then those same people would have to be against IVF and anything of the sort (and I know, some are). What I don't get is those who are okay with IVF but not okay with stem-cell research.

This is basically what I had to bring myself to realize. Because, honestly, even after I'd read up on everything, it was still a somewhat difficult decision for me to come to to actually flip-flop my opinion! I kept thinking that I HAD to be missing something. If it's truly only leftover IVF embryos, then what the HECK is the major deal??

Anyway, yes, I do still understand why those that are against IVF would be against this research. And, it's totally their right and I'll never try to change their opinion. But for those that are okay with IVF, I'm not sure why they wouldn't be okay with using those embryos for something good instead of just destroying them.

BTW...it's kinda hard to admit to my own stupidity!! :p (Stupidity only in the sense that I made an un-educated decision...)

[greenbunny]

And if posters here are so up in arms about the destruction of potential life, then perhaps they should volunteer to be incubators for these precious beings.

I have also previously heard the argument made, by people more eloquent than I, that people who are truly outraged by the trashing of said embryos would by extension be people who you'd think would adopt rather than have birth children.

[skyblu]

mrs_pell, I had a similar change of mind regarding abortion, and yes, it was very hard to kind of "switch camps". I used to be very adamantly pro-life, no gray areas, no questions. Then various things (including more education and more experiences in life) slowly led me to understand that pro-choice did not mean pro-abortion, and that being understanding and gentler and forgiving of good people faced with a difficult choice was the right thing (FOR ME).

Sorry to get OT (and I CERTAINLY don't want to start an abortion argument!), but I wanted to say again that I think your re-evaluating was corageous and admirable. Yay you!

[ysolde]

I think embryos can only be implanted inot donor uteri with the consent of the egg and sperm donors only. Otherwise, the embryos are stored, then discarded.

I don't think anyone is stupid for having an opinion different from my own. I just wish national policy were based on something other than the president's not particularly deeply held religious convictions (death penalty seems to be OK with him, and we KNOW it kills totally innocent people, which is why Illinois stopped the practice).

[chefker]

ysolde, I don't get that either.

So according to GWB: death penalty - right on! Stem cell research - ethically & morally irresponsible.

The sanctity of life only applies to potential human life, apparently. If you are found guilty of a crime - even if you didn't commit it, your life no longer matters. If you're suffering from an illness that could benefit from stem cell research - too bad, per the current administration.

1/20/09....1/20/09....can't come soon enough for me.

[BrownEyedGirl]

I'm going to try and stay out of this, mainly because I'm not very eloquent, and my thoughts never come out right when I'm passionate about something.

But I had to comment on this statement:
To me it is exactly the same as killing someone to take their kidney to give it someone in need of a transplant.

Actually, it's like taking someone's kidneys, heart, lungs, liver, eyes, and anything else usable right before they pull the plug. It's not like killing someone, it's like letting someone who is dying save someone else.

(PS...I hate Bush!!!!)

[ejs]

I was listening to talk radio last night and a caller made an interesting point: He said that in regards to stem-cell research, GWB said it's not right to destroy a life in order to save a life, but isn't that his basic justification for the Iraq war? "Innocents" have to die in order to save the Iraqi people.

In all of the CC threads about stem-cell research, I have said that I will never understand how anyone can be against this. I have never seen a good answer to the question "If the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for research?"

[MLA]

I have never seen a good answer to the question "If the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for research?"

That's because there's no good answer to that question.

[ysolde]

In all of the CC threads about stem-cell research, I have said that I will never understand how anyone can be against this. I have never seen a good answer to the question "If the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for research?"


The answer I have generally read is that there is an ethical differnece between letting a living thing die and actively killing it.

Here, of course, I get into the even muddier ethical waters of intent. When killing a non-sentient living being, is your intent merely to kill it for sport, or is there a higher purpose? I think it makes a difference. Even with sentient beings, I find hunting for trophies pretty unethical, but hunting for food, as long as it is done in a humane manner, and the animal is not an endangered species, acceptable.

[DansGirl]

I have never seen a good answer to the question "If the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for research?"

This is the question I'm struggling with too. My problem with this argument is about who is making the decision to destroy the embryos - the federal government or the person to whom the embryo came from.

[chefker]

My problem with this argument is about who is making the decision to destroy the embryos - the federal government or the person to whom the embryo came from.

This area just gets so fuzzy. No doubt there are some embryos created with donor eggs or sperm - who would decide the fate of these embryos? The donors themselves, or the person who was going to be implanted with the embryos? I honestly don't know if there's a clear answer for that one.

[DansGirl]

I honestly don't know if there's a clear answer for that one.

Me neither.

[bookworm]

I thought it was in the contract the patient signs with the clinic? Keep for x period, keep indefinitely, etc. It's certainly not my area of expertise, but I'm pretty sure the patient signs off on the retention period.

[ejs]

Has anyone here donated their eggs or know anyone who has donated eggs or sperm or fertilized embryos?

When you donate, do you sign something that gives your permission for the embryos to be implanted in someone or used for research or only one or the other? Or is it like when you donate blood: once you donate it, you have no say as to what happens with it?

[sea74]

And what's your view on IVF?
Even though DH and I are struggling with IF we won't be doing IVF because of our beliefs. Do I think less of/judge anyone else who chooses to use IVF? Absolutely not.

You are aware that this ban affects embryos that were already going to be destroyed, right? That doesn't change your mind? Yes, I know. No, it does not change my mind. To me it's a moral issue and I can't bend on it.

Yes, I voted for him, and I do still believe he was better than the alternative, but there are a lot of things I don't agree with that he's doing/done. I agree with this statement. Although I voted for him I do not agree or support everything he's done. But in this case, I do.

These embryos are potentially going to be destroyed anyway - seriously, what's the alternative to using discarded IVF embryos for research? Find donor wombs to host said embryos? I've read a few different articles about infertile couples "adopting" the unwanted embryos, so that is one option. Am I naive enough to think this is the solution to the problem of unwanted embryos, no but it’s an option for some of them.

[MLA]

I've read a few different articles about infertile couples "adopting" the unwanted embryos, so that is one option. Am I naive enough to think this is the solution to the problem of unwanted embryos, no but it⦣8364;™s an option for some of them.

Okay, great. You've solved the issue for, what, 2% of the discarded embryos out there? Woo-hoo. Now what? What about the rest of them. If the 20% of the people in this country who oppose stem cell research can't come up with a way to save all those precious lives that will otherwise be destroyed for no reason, then they really don't have a leg to stand on in the argument. And the 80% of us who think that this research should happen can pretty much discount whatever they say. Y'all are losing this argument. Big time.

[ejs]

Okay, great. You've solved the issue for, what, 2% of the discarded embryos out there? Woo-hoo. Now what? What about the rest of them. If the 20% of the people in this country who oppose stem cell research can't come up with a way to save all those precious lives that will otherwise be destroyed for no reason, then they really don't have a leg to stand on in the argument. And the 80% of us who think that this research should happen can pretty much discount whatever they say. Y'all are losing this argument. Big time.

How can we expect them to take care of these embryos when they need to take care of all the children that will be born if/when abortion is outlawed? :)

[Suzlywoozly]

These embryos are potentially going to be destroyed anyway - seriously, what's the alternative to using discarded IVF embryos for research? Find donor wombs to host said embryos? :confused:

It took me two fresh IVF cycles to get pregnant. The first cycle produced a good number of embryos which are not frozen. After two miscarriages from using those embryos, we decided to do another fresh cycle so that we could do genetic testing on them to find out the reason for the miscarriages. On that second cycle we found that a majority of our embryos were genetically bad. Those bad embryos were donated to research. Now we are left with a handfull of embryos from the first cycle. We know that we will never use them or donate them to a donor because we have no way of knowing if they are genetically okay. To me it doesn't make sense to throw them away so we are looking into two different places to donate them to.

[chefker]

Or is it like when you donate blood: once you donate it, you have no say as to what happens with it?

I had always assumed it was something like this, but now and again you hear of sperm donors seeking out their 'children' after their sperm was used in a successful insemination.

I swear I saw something about this, years ago on 60 Minutes or some program like that - some guy who donated sperm found out he had fathered numerous children, and wanted to 'get to know' them. Which I found sort of odd, but to each his own I guess.

[Suzlywoozly]

This area just gets so fuzzy. No doubt there are some embryos created with donor eggs or sperm - who would decide the fate of these embryos? The donors themselves, or the person who was going to be implanted with the embryos? I honestly don't know if there's a clear answer for that one.

One of my girlfriends used donor sperm and donor eggs to concieve. They had four embryos left over to freeze. They decided last year that they were not going to pursue having anymore children. It was their choice to decide whether or not to donate the embryos to another couple, to science or to destroy them. I believe that the donor signs all rights away.

[sea74]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sea74 View Post
I've read a few different articles about infertile couples "adopting" the unwanted embryos, so that is one option. Am I naive enough to think this is the solution to the problem of unwanted embryos, no but it⦣8364;™s an option for some of them.
Okay, great. You've solved the issue for, what, 2% of the discarded embryos out there? Woo-hoo. Now what? What about the rest of them. If the 20% of the people in this country who oppose stem cell research can't come up with a way to save all those precious lives that will otherwise be destroyed for no reason, then they really don't have a leg to stand on in the argument. And the 80% of us who think that this research should happen can pretty much discount whatever they say. Y'all are losing this argument. Big time.
Why are you being bitchy? I wasn't being rude, snarky or bitchy :confused: I was responding that yes, some embryos are being "adopted." And I clearly said this was not the solution but it's what can happen for some of them? You clearly can read what I wrote so why be that way?

[skyblu]

sea74, while I don't agree with your viewpoint, I do find your beliefs to be much more consistent than those of other people.

Like I said before, if you (general you) don't believe in stem-cell research because of the whole "creating life is God's job" thing, then you shouldn't believe in IVF. I don't have a problem with people who, like you, think life should only be created by God and, as such, do not believe in IVF or any other laboratory intervention in conception.

However, I find that case to be the vast minority of people. Most (that I know) are vocally against SCR and yet are very quick to avail themselves of the life-creating technology if faced fertility problems. I find that very hypocritical.

[MLA]

Why are you being bitchy? I wasn't being rude, snarky or bitchy :confused: I was responding that yes, some embryos are being "adopted." And I clearly said this was not the solution but it's what can happen for some of them? You clearly can read what I wrote so why be that way?


Wow. Who's being bitchy now? I never called you names. I just think that if you want to save all these precious lives, you should have to come up with some viable ideas as to how that can be done. If you want to deny people w/horrifying genetic conditions the benefit of this research because of the sanctity of life, I think it's only fair that you figure out how to deal w/all these embryos.

I'm not trying to single you out, in particular sea74, but it's really frustrating to read again and again that embryonic research crosses some sort of moral line and not hear one real solution from the proponents of that argument for what to do with the discarded embryos. Why aren't you (general) up in arms trying to save these poor, innocent babies? It seems like you (general) only care about them when stem cell research is brought up. Hypocritical much?

sea74, while I don't agree with your viewpoint, I do find your beliefs to be much more consistent than those of other people.

Like I said before, if you (general you) don't believe in stem-cell research because of the whole "creating life is God's job" thing, then you shouldn't believe in IVF. I don't have a problem with people who, like you, think life should only be created by God and, as such, do not believe in IVF or any other laboratory intervention in conception.
Yeah, but skyblu, she said she doesn't fault others for having IVF, which is inconsistent, if you ask me. If you believe that discarding those embryos is murder, then you should be out protesting IVF, too.

[sea74]

you should have to come up with some viable ideas as to how that can be done. If you want to deny people w/horrifying genetic conditions the benefit of this research because of the sanctity of life, I think it's only fair that you figure out how to deal w/all these embryos.
My solution would be to not do it, I guess I thought was implied.

I think if people want to do IVF, they should only fertilize however many eggs they’re willing to use at that moment.
I understand that’s not financially acceptable.
I also understand not every egg fertilized makes it to the transfer stage so that’s why many eggs are fertilized.
It’s not a popular opinion and I get that. But there it is.
I think studies/testing/advancements should be done through cord blood stem cells and adult stem cells.

Yeah, but skyblu, she said she doesn't fault others for having IVF, which is inconsistent, if you ask me. If you believe that discarding those embryos is murder, then you should be out protesting IVF, too.
Actually, I said this:
Do I think less of/judge anyone else who chooses to use IVF? Absolutely not.
And I only added that because I didn't want anyone to jump in and say that I must hate/think people who do IVF are bad people, etc. It is not my place to judge anyone. It's my place to stand up for what I believe in and when I'm able to influence my beliefs by doing things such as voting for a certain person who shares my beliefs I do.

I don’t have much more to say on the topic. I’ve stated that I think doing research on embryos is morally wrong and I don’t think tax payers should have to pay for it.

[ejs]

I’ve stated that I think doing research on embryos is morally wrong and I don’t think tax payers should have to pay for it.

So do you think that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for anything they think is wrong? Those people who are against the death penalty or the war or trips for elected officials' spouses or anything like that shouldn't have to pay for it? How would we work that? Unfortunately, we don't have check boxes on our tax forms that let us select what we want our tax monies to go toward.

[wendalah]

So do you think that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for anything they think is wrong?

Staying out of the stem cell debate, but actually, I don't see anything wrong with Sea's statement there. I don't think taxpayers should have to pay for anything they think is wrong. Unfortunately that's impossible--but isn't "not paying for what we think is wrong" our ultimate goal when we decide who to vote for and what issues we back/reject?

[MLA]

Staying out of the stem cell debate, but actually, I don't see anything wrong with Sea's statement there. I don't think taxpayers should have to pay for anything they think is wrong. Unfortunately that's impossible--but isn't "not paying for what we think is wrong" our ultimate goal when we decide who to vote for and what issues we back/reject?

I agree w/you. But the fact is that nearly everyone in this country disagrees w/Bush's veto, which is what's so infuriating, ya know?

[MLA]

My solution would be to not do it, I guess I thought was implied.

So, your solution is to try to limit IVF treatments? Okay. Then go out and do something about it. Write to your representatives, start a grassroots movement, let the world know that you think IVF in which embryos are discarded is morally reprehensible. When you (again, general) do that, I'd be more likely to consider your position consistent. But that would be a highly unpopular thing to do, right? Who has the stomach to call parents dealing w/infertility murderers? Painting the scientists who want to do stem cell research as murderers, though? Much easier. Scientists are nameless, faceless and oh so scary.

[amew]

Thought this was interesting, particularly the fact that more people with stored embryos would like to donate them for research than "adopt" them out to other infertile couples.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A majority of U.S. couples with stored embryos from fertility treatments say they would be willing to donate unused embryos for stem cell research, says a doctor who surveyed patients.

"Large numbers of infertility patients ... support using embryos for research, and these are people who have invested emotionally and financially in these embryos," Dr. Anne Drapkin Lyerly of Duke University said in a telephone interview Wednesday.

. . .

Of 1,020 people who responded by saying they still had embryos in storage, 49 percent said they were likely to donate some or all of them for research. When asked specifically about stem cell research, the portion willing to donate embryos rose to 62 percent.

"It suggests that people are more willing to pursue research when they know more about it and how it might benefit their fellow citizens," Lyerly said.

She added that research was preferred to donating the embryos to other infertile couples, "which brings into question the idea that the more you care about an embryo, the more you want it to become a child."

"This has significant implications for potential policy change on stem cell research," said Lyerly, an obstetrician-gynecologist and bioethicist. She noted that research donations could provide thousands of new stem cell lines for study.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/20/donating.embryos.ap/index.html?eref=rss_health