Letter to the Pres, from Bob, the stem cell
 

The president calls an embryonic cell "human life". He holds the destruction of human life as immoral.
OK, not to call attention to the capital punishments he authorized in Texas, not the 3534 American military lives that have been sacrificed in the invasion and occupation of a country he decided to invade, nor the countless people that have died in their homeland, perhaps one of his supporters might be able to explain this for me.
If an embryo is going to be discarded because it is no longer viable, and we're talking many thousands regarding this, what exactly is the difference if the same embryo is used to find and expand remedies that will sustain life?
OK...you might say that the president regards stage eight mitosis embryos
as "human life". I don't. And though I know that his pandering to some "religious" constitancies gains support for his "moral cause", frankly,
I don't see the logic.
Exactly what "life" is important to the president and his supporters?
The embryos that will be medical waste anyway, or the Iraqi children that have been killed by the actions of the invading military?
Oh..here's Bob's letter:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...tter_to_pr.htm

I've always thought if these pro-lifers were actually consistent, they'd be protesting outside fertility clinics as well as abortion clinics, seeing as how thousands and thousands of embryos are created and then destroyed.

Other than Bush never ever being wrong about anything, I can't understand the reasoning behind banning using these embryos- they're going to be discarded anyway!

Or else be consistent and ban fertility clinics and tell women and men who can't conceive that clearly God didn't want them to have children so they should suck it up and accept it.

Excerpt from the forthcoming: "A Tragic Legacy: How a Good Vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency:"

http://salon.com/books/feature/2007/06/20/greenwald/

Until it is explained to me how it is consistent to say it is fine to create embryos that will be destroyed but not fine to use those same unwanted embryos in research that may ultimately save lives of people born with all kinds of genetic diseases, yes, I'd have to say it's hard to understand.

Care to take a crack at explaining the reasoning to me? I'm all ears. Or eyes, in this case.

Focus it however you wish. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

And, finally, a survey of people who actually have stored embryos they aren't going to implant and what they'd like to see done with them:

http://salon.com/wire/ap/archive.htm...D8PSO6G01.html

Now THERE's a crazy idea- actually ask people personally involved in a situation like this what they think... not just politicians and religious leaders...

Well, I hate being called "pro-life", that's part of the mindless terminology used by both sides of the abortion issue...of course I'm pro-life in the general sense, as I am pro-choice in the same sense....what I am is anti-abortion. And I am consistent I guess because I oppose the creation of life by artificial means...I don't think "God" has anything to do with it actually, at least not as some sort of devine "punishment", we all have differences physiologically and some women and some men are simply unable to create life, that's a sad thing but yes...there is no "devine right" to have a child.

You have determined when a human life begins? Or you got a definition of what kind of cell is or is not considered a human life, or has the ability to become one? Or what cause I wanna hear this part. I understand the federal funding part.

Or am I just all mixed up?

The problem is we lack the ability to determine exactly when "life begins", what we do know is the process that leads to what we are...it is not an unreasonable position to consider that process as synonymous with life.

So then what is not a human life?

Cheek cells sloughing off
Sperm cells waisted in a wet dream
Sperm cells waisted in self gratification (a Catholic bugaboo)
Egg cell that die with the m. cycle
Egg cell that a sperm attaches to but the DNA never gets in
Egg cells that a sperm cell attaches to, the DNA enters and is cut up
Egg cell that a sperm cell attaches to the DNA enters reaches the nucleus but the zygote dies
Egg cell fertilized by a sperm cell that never attach to the uterine wall
Egg cell fertilized by a sperm cell that divide to the 8 cell stage attach to the uterine wall but then die
Egg cell fertilized by a sperm cell that attach to the uterine wall and then are shed during the m. cycle
... and on

Precursors to egg and sperm cells...

Why at conception? In your opinion.
And inside or outside of the body?

So a zygote that has 47 chromosomes (maybe one extra 21) would be a life?
Or a zygote that has 45 chromosomes would or would not be?
Or some other number than 46, cause it happens all the time?

More than 23 definitely though, in a zygote?

And maybe I can get a grip on the potential problem, when I better understand the above.

the veto has to do with the federal funding, there is embryonic cell research. just not paid for by fed tax dollars.

and much like any other topic, some scientists think there is potential with embryonic cells, some think adult stem cells are just as good a thing to work with.

as to when life begins, good luck settling that one.

as to how bush thinks, well...good luck with that one too. it's my understanding god tells him what to do, according to george. so how can you argue with that?

this is an excerpt from an article i just read on the subject:

Research on stem cell lines derived in the interim would be eligible for federal funding. The new provision also would add ethical standards to be used for selecting embryos to be studied using federal funds, according to a draft of the provision.

By the 2008 elections, Democrats predicted, Bush's veto of new public funding for embryonic stem cell research would be a top priority of voters in the congressional and presidential elections.

Public opinion polls show strong support for the research.

Republican presidential hopefuls are split on the scope of federal involvement in embryonic stem cell research. Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani have broken with Bush — and the GOP's social conservatives — in backing the expansion of federal funding for such research.

Rivals Mitt Romney and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas oppose the expansion.

Most of the Democratic candidates have urged Bush to expand the research.

Scientists were first able to conduct research with embryonic stem cells in 1998, according to the National Institutes of Health. There were no federal funds available for the work until Bush announced on Aug. 9, 2001, that his administration would spend tax money for research on lines of cells that already were in existence.
Currently, states and private organizations are permitted to fund embryonic stem cell research, but federal support is limited to cells that existed as of Aug. 9, 2001. The latest bill was aimed at lifting that restriction.


the part in bold, i highlighted because i didn't know this, and wasn't sure anyone else did either....

Danzig,
The 76 cell lines that previously existed (and have not been expanded) serve to limit research. And, as you might know, NIH funding (the leading source for genetic investigation) has been cut substantially.
Estimates are that between 400,000 and 500,000 frozen "embryos" (really blastocysts) are discarded when they are no longer viable. The "Snowflake Project" has implanted 120 to 140 into serrogate mothers, where they were brought to term. All the rest, alas, found their way not to funerals but to medical waste.
Bush's policies concerning scientific research are quite obvious, as is his inconstant value of "human life", and investiagtion that holds the potential to improve it.