Bush's first veto
 

I spent some time with my son yesterday. He's a post doctorate geneticist doing research on embryonic stem cells seeking remedies for heart defects.
He doesn't use human stem cells yet, though they would certainly be useful for his investigation, as well as his colleagues. The areas of interest is heart defects and restoration of miocardial tissue subsequent to "heart attacks".
Specific genes include but are not limited to Nkx 2.5, Mef2c, and Hand1.
We talked about the limiting of cell lines and predicted that the following would occur.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D8IVAGAGR.html

Seems that the "moral" line (rather put the unused embryos in the dumpster rather than give scientists access) will continue the anti-scientist sentiments.
Can anyone say, "creative intelligence"?

My guess is that the "fundementalist" votes are more important...but in reality, most voters will have forgotten this long before the elections.

Well, I give Bush credit for standing by his beliefs, I agree that this shouldn't be a huge political issue. As one who is anti-abortion, I share the fears that this would open the door to abuses however I see no reason why that can't be controlled without denying scientists important tools in their fight against human suffering. Sometimes, when issues become so polarizing, neither side can find the door to compromise...and that is always sad. Not saying to compromise one's beliefs, simply to find a way to service the best interests of all humanity.

The Christian Right put the W, his daddy and Reagan in office...this was no surprise.

How sad.

Actually, California is taking the lead in state funding of this form of research and also, private funding is becoming more available.
With NIH budget being reduced (see money going to fund the continuing disaster in Iraq), and recent polls showing 70% in favor of this research, Bush has indeed drawn his "line in the sand".
Senator Harkin said it best today, "He's the president, nobody elected him to be the Pope or Ayotollah".
From my point of view, I certainly don't need him making "moral decisions" on my behalf.
If human life is so precious to him, how come the continuing deaths in many places don't hold equal weight as stage eight mitosis frozen embryos?

For that matter, why isn't he campaigning to shut down fertility clinics, since they lead directly to the "death" of thousands of embryos every year? In fact, I believe that's where most of the embryos used in research come from-- people sign over their discarded embryos to research. So he prefers that we permit fertility clinics to continute creating thousands of "lives" that will be "murdered" by disposal, but doesn't favor donating them to research? Seems less like standing up for one's beliefs and more like hypocritical behavior, doesn't it? Oh wait, this IS Bush...

For that matter, why does anyone who thinks life begins at conception think fertility clinics are acceptable? Why aren't they out protesting them and threatening the people who go to them?

Struck me as just Bush pandering to the most radical of the right wing.... just hanging on to the last batch of follow the leader disciples remaining true to the end.

"Moral Decision" is just code for "Neo-Conservative Christian Religous Beliefs."

It's so sad what these fear-mongering, bible-thumping, election-stealing, war-losing, CIA agent-outing clowns have done to the Republican Party.

Actually It's the 'take a poll' gutless politicians on both sides of the aisle blowing in the wind of public opinion that stymy any real progress on any topic in the arena today! And a good dose of state secret-stealing, godless unless it serves their purpose,good ole boy,too stupid to run an election right bonehead FLAMERS, leaving the barn door open to military and nuclear secrets that set the Country back 20 years!

Absolutely.

It was no less disappointing watching the Democrats turn themselves into the party of no ideas.

Watching Kerry for three months doing nothing and refusing to "Swing at the pitch" was awful. Playing not to lose instead of playing to win. What the heck was he waiting for?

See,Stud...we do agree about some things! There's HOPE for us all yet.

lol... as Lewis Black said about his vote in the PResidential race, "WTF was I supposed to do when I had to choose between two bowls of sh.t?!?"

Nancy Reagan changed her tune after what her husband went through. I bet if someone in the Bush family got unfortunate...

Interesting "take" on this issue, Pgardn.
Since the embryos in question are going to be dicarded anyway, seems to me that they could serve a more useful purpose than becoming "medical waste".

I certainly agree...it's always a matter of who's ox gets gored! Cheney has a g-ay daughter and that alters his view a bit. The danger of course is that they run out of available stem cells and abortion for profit becomes a reality...obviously, I have problems with that as I suspect many do, but I see no reason there can't be safeguards installed from the beginning to prevent that!

Somerfrost,
To my knowledge, these embryos don't come into existance through abortion.
They are harvested from the female donor and fertilized invitro.
Those that successfully come to term are the "snowflake" babies that surrounded Bush in his photo op.
However, since there are far more embroyos created than are implanted, the surplus are stored in liquid nitrogen until they are no longer viable.
We can start seperate threads on abortion and g-ay rights. These topics are not germain to the stem cell issue.

I only mentioned g-ay rights in the context that initially arose from Pgardn's post...folks with personal involvements tend to alter their point of view whether it be stem cell, g-ay rights, or the fact that an Arab family is moving in next door! Abortion is germain to this issue as it remains the one significant danger. I support this research and recognize the tremendous benefit that it can produce to millions of people, my only issue is safeguards for the future when hopefully scientists have developed successful treatments for those millions requiring a huge supply of stem cells! I'll repeat myself...there is no reason this can't be done! There is no need to debate the morality of abortion here, that takes my concerns out of context!

Somerfrost,
Thanks for the clarification.
I agree with much of your position.
Abortion is not the source of embryonic stem cells.
As far as needing a "huge supply of stem cells", that really isn't the case.
Of the 78 cell lines presently allowed, none of the colonies came from aborted fetuses. The issue is the current limitation of scientific investigation to those existing cell lines. Since stem cells are undifferentiated (therein their value), they can be replicated invitro to supply research. A "huge supply" is not necessary.
I agree that allowing more cell lines to be used for investigation should be done. It must be done.
My point is that discarding embryos is a complete waste, though it does serve a "moral" and political agenda.

Political...yes! Moral...well, I think we agree there! No, my concern doesn't involve the research phase rather, down the road, where will the supply be generated for treatment of hopefully millions of folks who will benefit? Again, address this now and the issue goes away for me...I just don't want to see women getting pregnant for the sole purpose of aborting their baby for stem cells...there has already been a case involving something very similar so it's not science fiction.

Thanks for the question.
Women don't become pregnant and then have their baby aborted to supply stem cells. That would be scientifically impossible. The cells would already have become differentiated long before the time that the embryo attaches to the uterine wall.
The value of stem cells is that they have not become differentiated, that is...
they haven't become nerve, heart, mucscle, etc tissue.
Stem cells (undifferentated cells) come into existance at the early stages of development, stage eight mitosis. This is when the fertilized ovume has divided eight times. At that point, it is a cluster of cells called an embryo.
At the next stage of mitosis (cell division), a tube develops that will later become the heart. Next comes the beginnings of neural tissue.
The stage of development that holds promise is before this occurs.
Embryos are created in a petri dish, outside of the donor female, for implantation. Eggs are harvested and fertilized invitro. The surplus have been stored in liquid nitrogen should the need for reimplantation occur.
Those that aren't needed are stored until they are no longer viable, then discarded.

OK, thanks for that clarification...in that case, I have no objection whatsoever! Do you recall the case I'm referring to? A woman wanted to abort her fetus/child in order to use something (thought it was stem cells) to help her ailing father. He was apparently a well-known scientist, perhaps a Nobel winner? Anyway, her argument centered around the fact that her father's life was more valuable than an unborn...raised the hair on the back of my neck instantly!

I'm not familiar with the case.
I personally do not believe that a life should be taken to preserve someone elses. In my opinion, that's just plain wrong.

... and that's exactly the position extremist anti-choicers and anti-stem cell researchers take. If you believe life begins at conception, then you can't support harvesting stem cells. Nor should you be supporting fertility clinics, but they don't tend to take their thought processes that far.

Mind you, I'm ardently pro-stem cell research and also ardently pro-choice (after much, much soul searching and hypothetical arguing with myself years ago as a teenager and young adult). And I can respect, if disagree with, people who are consistent in their beliefs about when life begins and when it is appropriate to end it. What makes me so crazy about Bush is it's all about political posturing-- stem cells, valuable, full human beings! Discarded clinic embryos... wha? What did you say? Me no understandy...

Again, guys; I love how, in the midst of all the passionate horse-race talk, these off-talk issues can come up and people can disagree and debate and toss around ideas kindly and with civility. You all make me proud to be a horse-racing fan and honored to be a member of this board. :)

Genuine Risk,
I was responding to Somerfrost's post about a concern he had about a woman that was willing to abort her fetus so that organs could be transplanted to her father..though I don't know about the case cited.
He needed clarification as to where stem cells came from and what they were used for. I hope I provided the information requested.
Again, stem cells come from unused embryos that are surplus from "fertility clinics". At that stage, they are not viable "human beings". They are destined to be discarded should an appropriate surrogate mother not be found. The amount of available embryos sitting in a thermos of liquid nitrogen is way beyond that possibility.
My opinion is that they are NOT viable human life at that point. They are a cluster of undifferentiated cells that can be used for scientific purposes. In my belief, there is a huge difference between an embryo and a fetus.
Discarding embryos denies the scientific community of finding answers that could help many people.
If you go back to my first post on this thread, you'll see the genes that are of specific interest to my son. His quest is to find the genetic "triggers" that cause a condition that occurs AFTER stage eight mitosis called (in "lay man's terms) hole in the heart. It's when the heart malforms and blood pumps between the left and right ventricles. This condition is seen in six of ten thousand live births and the newborns are rushed to the OR for "open heart surgery".
It is my hope that he and his fellow scientists can pursue their investigations and thereby help many, without the interferance of "moral politicians".

DTS, I apologize if I'm being unclear-- I have NO issue with stem-cell research; I think it's offers great possibilities for all kinds of medical conditions, and I, too, think there is a difference between an embryo and a fetus, just as I think there is a difference between a fetus and a baby. I'm with the WHO; pregnancy doesn't begin until the embryo attaches to the wall of the uterus. I'm saying that assorted religious right-wingers out there will stamp their feet and yell that as soon as an egg is fertilized it is now "life" and must not be used in the name of scientific research. I was pissed-off at Bush's wussy little deceptive "compromise" back in 2001, and I'm pissed-off at his stupid pandering veto, even though I expected no better from him. My point was, if these right-wingers are forced to pursue their line of thinking far enough, they usually start backing away from the full implications of insisting life begins with a fertilized eggs, which are that fertility clinics are baby-killing factories, since they discard thousands of fertilized embryos. Which, of course, they aren't; that's silly. Just as silly as refusing to let discarded embryos be used for research.

Screaming liberal here, remember? Pro-choice, pro-sex ed, pro stem-cell research, pro-raising the minimum wage, pro universal health care and all that. Anything that can make the lives of everyday Americans better. :)

And thanks for the info on the specifics of embryos-- it was really interesting reading!!!

Genuine,
I'm with you regarding making lives better, not just for Americans, but also for all of the inhabitants of this planet.
Thanks for your positive response.
I also don't like the idea that those who use their power to deny beneficial potential deny many hopes....far too many.
What a waste!

DTS

We agree except for abortion. Here is a book you might find interesting:
"Parecon:Life After Capitalism" by Michael Albert. It has some interesting concepts, you can read about it here:
http://www.myspace,com/parecon

Bold one not weighing in on this issue.

Very interesting.

Somer,
The link didn't work for me. I'll pick it up at the bookstore or the library.
DTS

Somer, I have a pen pal of 25 years now (we started writing when we were ten, believe it or not) who is also ardently anti-abortion, but she's also very pro-birth control, and so I respect her position and we have had a very harmonious friendship for a quarter century now. S'okay to have a different opinion; makes the world go 'round. And I think it's through fairly and openly debating the different views of issues that we all (hopefully) arrive at the best solutions.

I'd recommend to everyone, if you can find it (it's out of print, but maybe google the title and used books or something), "When Abortion Was a Crime," which looks at the roughly 100-year period when abortion was more or less illegal in the US (1867-1970). Very interesting read for both sides of the debate because at least it gives you the historical context of what you're talking about. And I'll take a look for the book you suggested, Somer, my fellow Keystonian. :) You can take the girl out of Pennsylvania, but you can't take Pennsylvania out of the girl...

I'm on his ignore.
Now if we were discussing Republican stem cells vs Democratic or Independent stem cells....

Hee hee hee. I keep meaning to get back on the Lebanon thread but it's so very exhausting sometimes... :)

TOTALLY OT, but Somer, did you see the thing about Joss Whedon getting that award from some women's group, honoring him for his female characters? If for some reason you didn't, I'll try to send you the link. He said some great stuff.

Yes, he received the award from "Equality Now" a women's group co-founded by his mother, Lee Sterns. Joss is a feminist of course, and he speaks so very strongly for equality...the link to the video is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYaczoJMRhs

Of COURSE you would have seen it already. :) I rewatched "You're Welcome" from "Angel" last night and got moved all over again... I love David Fury's commentary tracks; he always says interesting stuff.

"Your Welcome" along with "Hole In The World" and "I Will Remember You" are my three favorite Angel episodes...the intensity of emotion in those three is rivaled only by "The Body" and the end of season two of Buffy. Charisma's return to Angel was fantastic, and while it was somewhat disappointing to me to see Joss end it that way, it was probably the most effective, heart-wrenching ending possible! Christian Kane, as always, was great in that episode as well. Speaking of him, check out some of his group's music...they are great...oh, called "Kane" and they do country.

I love "A Hole in the World" too, and Fred was never one of my favorite characters (though I loved Illyria so it didn't have anything to do with Amy Acker). That's the thing with Whedon-- he knows the heartwrenching ends are the ones that really stay with you. An artistic truth. Would "Charlotte's Web" be what it is if the spider lived? :)

True but I don't think anybody has done tragic endings and death better than Joss...Tara's killing was so unexpected, Willow ripping the flesh off her killer's body (Warren), Joyce suddenly dying and how realistically that was done, Jenny being killed by Angelus, Buffy's death in "The Gift" and her resurrection at great cost, Anya being cut in two, Doyle sacrificing himself, Cordy's death and goodbye, Fred's painful demise, Wesley's acceptance of his passing, and...although he came back in Angel, Spike's heroic death that saved the world and united Buffy and him forever. Then, the death of Book and Wash in Serenity...just when you think they are safe! Yet characters such as Willow, Xander, Jayne, and River...always seemingly about to die, somehow survive! Joss is a genius...nothing short!

I don't know; I think that EB White guy could write a little bit... tee hee.

Seriously, in television, you are 100 percent right; Whedon has no equal because it's never "safe" in his worlds. And the dead characters are not forgotten-- even Doyle, who was in what, five episodes, was mentioned in "You're Welcome." Which is so very, very true in life.

I think "The Body" is one of the best hours of television I've ever seen. I'm so glad Whedon is helming "Wonder Woman." I can't think of anyone else who could do it justice.

I think Doyle was in the first 8 or 9 but your point is 100% correct. Jenny was revisited, first by Dru and much later by the First. Illyria's ability to change into Fred and fool even her parents, Tara's memory (would have seen her again if Amber had been available), Joyce reappearing to Dawn. Then again, how masterful was Joss in introducing Dawn in the first place! How do you suddenly introduce a kid sister in the fifth season of a show and have her being a part of everything from the beginning??

I so agree; he took some very big risks and made them pay off. It was smart, too-- Buffy had been the daughter in the mother-daughter relationship and that was just about played out, dramatically speaking. So he introduces this character, and then, with the death of Joyce, Buffy moves into the mother role, as it were. Smart, smart writing.

I thought I also read somewhere Amber didn't want to reprise Tara in that episode because it wasn't really Tara; it was the First, and she didn't want fans' last memories of Tara to be of an evil imposter. For which I give her big props, if that's true. (Though she has nothing negative to say about Joss, et al, by the way- -I think she just disagreed with this particular idea)

That could be, I think she also had other commitments during the filming of "Conversations With Dead People". It certainly would have added power to Willow's torment to have had her speaking with The First/Tara. That episode was great by the way! I especially enjoyed Buffy's conversation with her high school mate...hated to see her dust him! Folks simply don't know what they are missing if they never got into these shows, so many people laugh at them just cause of the name yet they were easily the best ever on TV, certainly the most thought-provoking and yet so damn funny at times! Even the darker Angel was downright hilarious still...

I agree. A friend of mine still bears me a slight grudge for evangelizing about "Buffy" so much and so often that his girlfriend (a dear friend of mine) finally Netflicked the first season and they both promptly kissed the next six weeks of their lives goodbye as they sat in front of the TV from 6-11PM every night, watching the whole series.