From the Washington Post:
President Obama is planning to sign an executive order on Monday rolling back restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, according to sources close to the issue.
Although the exact wording of the order has not been revealed, the White House plans an 11 a.m. ceremony to sign the order repealing one of the most controversial steps taken by his predecessor, fulfilling one of Obama's eagerly anticipated campaign promises....
The move, long sought by scientists and patient advocates and opposed by religious groups, would enable the National Institutes of Health to consider requests from scientists to study hundreds of lines of cells that have been developed since the limitations were put in place -- lines that scientists and patient advocate say hold great hope for leading to cures for a host of major ailments.
Administration officials would not comment immediately other than to say "there will be a stem cell-related event on Monday." But an e-mail sent out today from the White House stated that officials were planning a ceremony on Monday "on stem cells and restoring scientific integrity to the government process. At the event the president will sign an executive order related to stem cells." Sources close to the issue, asking not to be named because they were not authorized to discuss the plan, said the order would lift the restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cells.
Because stem cells obtained from very early embryos are believed capable of becoming any tissue in the body, scientists believe they could lead to fundamental insights into the underlying causes of many diseases and repair damage caused by many ailments, including diabetes, Parkinson's disease and spinal cord injuries. But extracting them destroys the embryo.
In an effort to prevent tax dollars from encouraging the destruction of more embryos, President Bush imposed the restriction on Aug. 9, 2001, limiting federal funding to studies of what turned out to be 21 cell lines that were already in existence as of that date.
The limitation, welcomed by those who believe that destroying human embryos is immoral, has been denounced by many scientists as severely hindering research one of the most promising fields of biomedical research.
The 21 cell lines that scientists have been permitted to study under the Bush policy have a variety of shortcomings, critics say. Many, for example, might have defects that could make them dangerous to transplant into people. But perhaps more important, hundreds of newer lines have been developed that offer a host of opportunities. Many, for example, carry defects for specific diseases.
Because of his long support for such research and repeated promise to repeal the restrictions, proponents expected Obama to lift the restriction in his first week in office, when he issued a flurry of executive orders to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, make government less secretive and lift a ban on funding international family planning groups that support abortion, among other things. But Obama did not, raising concern among advocates that he might be reconsidering his promise.
Opponents have argued that research on human embryonic stem cells has become unnecessary because of scientific advances in the interim, including promising studies involving adult stem cells and the ability to turn adult cells into cells that appear to have many of the properties of embryonic cells. But many scientists say it remains far from clear which cells will ultimately lead to the most important advances, making it crucial to continue to study both kinds.
Some opponents have suggested that Obama might qualify his executive order to try to take the sting out of the move as part of his effort to find common ground on divisive issues. But proponents expect Obama will simply lift the restriction without caveats and let the NIH work out the details. In anticipation, the NIH has started drafting guidelines that would address the many ethical issues raised by the research, using as models templates compiled by the National Academy of Sciences and the International Society for Stem Cell Research.
Advocates were especially concerned that the delay could force stem cell scientists to miss an opportunity to apply for some of the new funding the NIH is receiving as part of the stimulus package.
Despite the executive order, Congress is also likely to get involved by considering legislation designed to prevent any future presidents from reinstating restrictions.
Or, according to most MSM, he stopped the Bush policy banning embryonic stem cell research! *sigh*Posted by: Lauren at March 6, 2009 5:02 PM
we have become NAZI GERMANY. God Help us ALL.......Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 6, 2009 5:09 PM
praise the Lord
Science prevails over ignorance
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter...Posted by: Lauren at March 6, 2009 5:40 PM
It's about time! YAAAY!Posted by: reality at March 6, 2009 5:41 PM
"YAAAY!" is what I will say when reality deservedly goes to Hell to burn for the rest of eternity.Posted by: Gerry at March 6, 2009 6:17 PM
how many embryos will be destroyed to find ONE treatment? 1000s? 10000s? 100000s?
There are already rich sources of stem cells, ethical stem cells that is, available. Umbilical cord blood is one such source.Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 6, 2009 6:41 PM
we have become NAZI GERMANY. God Help us ALL.......
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 6, 2009 5:09 PM
How so, Liz?
"YAAAY!" is what I will say when reality deservedly goes to Hell to burn for the rest of eternity.
Posted by: Gerry at March 6, 2009 6:17 PM
Posted by: Josephine
at March 6, 2009 6:52 PM
This is what I don't understand. Are you supposed to be a Christian, Gerry?
Experimentation. Except this is done on human embryos (which are still HUMAN BEINGS). And Nazi Germany was well known for its Eugenics, as well.Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 6, 2009 7:51 PM
Everything that has been done to morally and ethically protect life in the last 8 years is being ripped down by this liberal baby killing so called leader of the free world, and he has the nerve to call himself a man of God. Well sir the God you serve is that of man because if you had any ethics or morals at all you would realize that life, ALL life is sacred and needs protected, that is what is in the book you took your oath of office on or did you forget you had your hand on the bible? They call it pro-choice, I never new a child that wanted to be killed. NOT one thing to treat anyone has ever come from embryonic stem cell research, just the mass murder of innocent life! READ THE FACTS DO YOUR RESEARCH!!! Any and all treatments have come from ADULT CELLS!!!!! Get on your horses americans, speak up for what is right not being politically correct is what has made us the best nation in the world!!!!!Posted by: The American Guy at March 6, 2009 8:05 PM
Morally and ethically protect life of Americans, right? Since the Bush administration obviously didn't mind ruining the lives of Iraqis? How about ruining the lives of the people in Afghanistan?
Actually-- I take that back, since apparently a couple thousand American lives didn't matter to the Bush administration either.
"ALL life is sacred and needs protected"
Really? Or just the lives of unborn babies?Posted by: Josephine at March 6, 2009 9:02 PM
IF your a christian than you know war is a part of life and will be a part of life until the return of our King, if not than you need to attend another church that preaches the truth and not just "feel good doctrine". Unfortunately death is a part of war, I have had the privilege to serve with some of those brave men and women who gave their lives to give us the freedom to do what you and I are here today doing and to give that to the Iraqi people by liberating them from a dictatorship regime who killed hundred of thousands of his own countrymen woman and children or did you forget about that? The blood americans have shed around the world and here on our own soil has been for freedom and will continue to be for freedom, or did you forget the price that was paid for our country or would you prefer to still be serving the king of england? Would you like a dose of reality with your tea and crumpets?Posted by: The American Guy at March 6, 2009 9:50 PM
Josephine, the civil government has a duty to defend its citizens. In fact, the apostle Paul calls it God's minister (Romans 13) and says that it has the power of the sword. What does one do with a sword? butter bread? plough dirt? Now I'm a Protestant, and the Roman Catholic interpretation may differ, but I believe that capital punishment (for murder) and military defense (against foreign aggression) are essential to a proper understanding of the sanctity of human life.
President Bush was acting both in reaction to 911, which as you remember was a terrorist attack on the U.S., and in fulfillment of his promises to Saddam Hussein, who said that he had weapons of mass destruction, an act of rebellion against the U.S., which had after the first Iraq war set terms for the conquered Iraq to follow. Mr. Bush is a man of his word, and he took Mr. Hussein at his word. Mr. Bush also had to rely on the faulty intelligence gathered by the Clinton Administration, which said that Iraq had the w.m.d. And most Americans were in favour of going to war.Posted by: Jon at March 6, 2009 9:56 PM
Ahh, so it's okay for US to kill them-- we just can't let them kill eachother. Understandable.
That's entirely understandable!
Did I forget the price that was paid for our country. How about I answer that from Iraq two weeks from now.Posted by: Josephine at March 6, 2009 10:04 PM
No, Josephine, the American government may not let Muslim terrorists kill Americans.Posted by: Jon at March 6, 2009 10:11 PM
or any terrorists, for that matter. But they happen to be Muslim.Posted by: Jon at March 6, 2009 10:11 PM
Jon, after we didn't FIND wmds, and after Bush admitted he made a mistake, please tell me why we continued to occupy? None of us know, that's for sure!
As for "Saddam telling Bush", well, you mean they "claim" that right? Because a tiny little group of people claim this with no proof.
Also, if Bush claims that Saddam told him himself, why would ANY of the Clinton's administration's information matter, exactly? Especially since the Clinton administration didn't act...
Now, in 2001 do you remember how we were supposed to be finding Osama Bin Laden? Have we?Posted by: Josephine at March 6, 2009 10:23 PM
No, Josephine, the American government may not let Muslim terrorists kill Americans.
Posted by: Jon at March 6, 2009 10:11 PM
Posted by: Josephine
at March 6, 2009 10:25 PM
The Americans that are getting killed by "terrorists" are getting killed right now because we are in THEIR home. The majority of Americans AREN'T being killed in Afghanistan, the country of the terrorists that were responsible for the attacks of 9/11.
I praise you for serving in our military, so I now know I'm preaching to the choir, if not please find another kind of work to pay for your college loans if your not willing to fight for our country and our beliefs in which you took an oath to honor and uphold, but I truly do thank you for your service to our country.Posted by: The American Guy at March 6, 2009 10:31 PM
Josephine, your knowledge of military matters seems to be even less extensive than mine. (I don't have much.) But if terrorists come to United States to attack the United States, then the only effective means of prevention is to attack them on their own soil. But where do they live? The countries that harbour them must be punished. There's a new term for the kind of strategy that terrorists are using: asymmetric warfare. The old "rules" don't apply. And without controversy, President G.W. Bush did an excellent job of keeping the U.S. safe for Americans.Posted by: Jon at March 6, 2009 10:40 PM
I am very grateful to our President for finally bringing the United States into the 21st century after 8 long hard years of anti-science, anti-intellectual leadership.Posted by: Mr B at March 6, 2009 10:42 PM
It's hard for us to prove our points when stupidity is in play, because if it was just ignorance they would have an excuse until they were educated on the issues but choosing to ignore the facts bleeds stupidity. So my blog work here is done, I'm mounting my horse and moving on to other issues with more common sense, hey who am I kidding, these are liberals.Posted by: The American Guy at March 6, 2009 10:54 PM
It would seem that stupidity being in play is a given when dealing with people who honestly, truly believe that embryos are "human beings" that deserve rights.Posted by: Mr B at March 6, 2009 10:57 PM
Josephine said, "Jon, after we didn't FIND wmds, and after Bush admitted he made a mistake, please tell me why we continued to occupy?"
Dear Eliza, if there's a hole in my pocket--and especially if I have purposely made that hole--I fix it. If we start a war, we finish it. We don't cut and run. If we do, anarchy will be the result. As history demonstrates, any government--even Mr. Husseins's--is better than no government. Would you really advocate abandoning Iraq and letting it fall apart?
Josephine said, "As for "Saddam telling Bush", well, you mean they "claim" that right? Because a tiny little group of people claim this with no proof.
Maybe, you're right. I had always thought Mr. Hussein made claims of having w.m.d. in similar fashion to the current ruler of Iran.
Josephine said, "Also, if Bush claims that Saddam told him himself, why would ANY of the Clinton's administration's information matter, exactly? Especially since the Clinton administration didn't act..."
President Clinton either starved or corrupted the intelligence agency. They didn't have good intelligence. Perhaps he did it in a similar way to Mr. Obama's, by greatly reducing military spending. Also, President Clinton never had 911. That happened soon after President Bush became president.
Josephine said, "Now, in 2001 do you remember how we were supposed to be finding Osama Bin Laden? Have we?"
I understand that Mr. Bin Laden is in hiding. So far he has not been able to launch another successful attack on the U.S. What are you suggesting?Posted by: Jon at March 6, 2009 11:00 PM
to the American guy: liberals are people too.Posted by: Jon at March 6, 2009 11:04 PM
" if your not willing to fight for our country and our beliefs in which you took an oath to honor and uphold, but I truly do thank you for your service to our country."
Uhm. I leave for Iraq the 18th. So, please, tell me how I'm not "willing"?
" If we start a war, we finish it. "
Are you kidding? Yeah, who cares if it's immoral. We started it, and we should NEVER admit we were wrong!!! Let's just keep killing!
Clinton didn't have 9/11.. you're right. However, Clinton DID have to deal with several attacks. Because Clinton acted rationally, instead of invading the attacking countries, thousands of Americans didn't die.
"I understand that Mr. Bin Laden is in hiding. So far he has not been able to launch another successful attack on the U.S. What are you suggesting?"
Funny how we found Saddam so quickly, isn't it? American soldiers should NOT be in Iraq. We shouldn't. There's no way around it.
"Josephine, your knowledge of military matters seems to be even less extensive than mine. "
You're right. 'Cause it's not like I haven't been going through briefing after briefing before leaving or anything.. Oh wait, I have. I'm going to guess my "knowledge of military matters" greatly exceeds yours.Posted by: Josephine at March 6, 2009 11:08 PM
Josephine, do you know more than President Bush did? And remember, hindsight is 20-20.Posted by: Jon at March 6, 2009 11:13 PM
Do I know more than President Bush did on what matters?
on military matters. President Bush had a difficult decision to make, but he made it and went forward with it as a good leader does. (And most Americans supported his decision, anyway.) Maybe it was the wrong decision, but you can't reverse a war. President Bush doesn't even believe that America is good at nation-building. (He said this when running for president.) He didn't have a choice. And again, I can't believe that you actually advocate abandoning Iraq. You talk about the immorality of killing people: do you really want to see a blood bath? Why do you think Mr. Obama has backed off from his earlier promises to pull American troops out of Iraq? He's finally been confronted with reality. Taking out Mr. Hussein was the easy part; leaving behind a stable government is much more difficult.Posted by: Jon at March 6, 2009 11:38 PM
It wasn't just the wrong decision to invade Iraq, it was the insane and arrogant one. How could anyone actually think that it's a possibility to install a Democracy in a region that has never, in its entire history, been even remotely receptive to the concept? Pulling out of Iraq as soon as possible is by far the most prudent option, and it doesn't matter whether it's 2010 or 2030, as soon as we're gone Iraq is going to end up like South Vietnam and revert back to its old ways. Cutting our losses now will save an untold number of American lives and billions in military costs.Posted by: Mr B at March 6, 2009 11:46 PM
So, tell me, Jon, why Iraq? Iraq certaintly isn't the only country without a "stable government". Are we supposed to go all over the world engaging in wars to change governments over countries that didn't ask for our help? That doesn't seem very American to me-- sounds like cramming our beliefs down other people's throats.
I think it's absolutely a mistake that Obama is waiting so long to bring troops home. Do you know we're doing there right now? Cleaning up the crap storm of a mess WE made, for the most part! There would be NO "blood bath" if we pulled out. You do realize they HATE us right? The people that came back from my unit a couple weeks ago talked about HATE speech, being SPIT on, threats...
Yeah. They totally want our help.
You can't REVERSE a war. You can end it. He already acknowledged that maybe we shouldn't be there. He even said the war was over a LONG time ago. We're still there though. Wasting money, letting people die..
As for it being a "difficult decision to make" well, I just don't think it was that hard for Bush to make given his striking military record.Posted by: Josephine at March 6, 2009 11:49 PM
Josephine, would you rather that the Iraquis spit on you in Iraq or fly an airplane into your office in America? because, you know, the terrorists have been put on the defensive. You do realize that they hate us, right?
Actually, the reports I've heard say that the situation is actually quite good in Iraq. Security's so good that some of the old liberal vices are returning, e.g. the night life in the big city.
But maybe Mr. B's right. I'm still glad that Mr. Bush was president and not Mr. B. or President Obama. The decision was difficult, but he stuck to it.Posted by: Jon at March 7, 2009 12:01 AM
Most of the American “anti-war” people were not “anti-war” at all. If they were truly anti-war, they would be protesting the deployment of 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan. They were anti-George BushPosted by: Jasper at March 7, 2009 12:11 AM
Most of the American “anti-war” people were not “anti-war” at all. If they were truly anti-war, they would be protesting the deployment of 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan. They were anti-George BushPosted by: hd izle at March 7, 2009 3:02 AM
Mr B says "It would seem that stupidity being in play is a given when dealing with people who honestly, truly believe that embryos are "human beings" that deserve rights.
Mr B. A new, unique human being is formed at amphimixis. There is no scientific dispute about this fact. Please explain why acknowledging the scientific begininning of a new, unique human life is "stupid."
Also, please explain what criteria you use to define when a person is a human being.
Remember that science defines human life as a continuem beginning at amphimixis and ending at natural death. Nothing leaps into existence, and nothing fundementally changes. It is simply a matter of development.
Posted by: Lauren
at March 7, 2009 7:51 AM
News flash to the clueless: Christians believe in Hell and in justice.Posted by: Gerry at March 7, 2009 7:58 AM
ESCR will NEVER cure anyone. Adult stem cells will be what provides the treatments and cures. How many embryos will be destroyed in research before ONE treatment is found? 1000s? 10000s? 100000s? 1000000s? Just how many?
Even the Alzheimer's Society admits that ESCR will not be able to cure Alzheimer's, because the disease is so complex.Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 7, 2009 8:38 AM
Its hard to imagine that our nation is so far behind such countries as Thailand, S.Korea, Portugal, and China where ASC research is being conducted and has made breakthroughs.
Americans have travelled to these countries for ASC treatment.
Even new mothers are aware of umbilical cord stem cell treatments and are having them saved.
So where is OUR scientific community fixated on embryonic stem cells?
We Americans remain in reverse while the rest of the world is in overdrive.
Iraqis weren't responsible for 9/11, Jon. Not only that, but you realize we've literally killed 100,000 of thousands of Iraqis, and lost several thousand Americans (not just soldiers-- private contractors, media..) in being in Iraq. You realize by invading their country unprovoked we are doing to them what was done to us on a MUCH greater scale?? Since when is "sticking to a tough decision" a good thing when it's a decision you never should've made. A good leader would've have pulled out after acknowledging their mistake. Not good ol' GW.
Most of the American “anti-war” people were not “anti-war” at all. If they were truly anti-war, they would be protesting the deployment of 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan. They were anti-George Bush
Posted by: Jasper at March 7, 2009 12:11 AM
Uhm, I watch protests on my college campus ALL the time. When I'm home, there are protests in the city ALL the time. Anytime I A lot of the reason there aren't MORE protests are because it's very hard to protest a WAR without protesting the soldiers.
News flash to the clueless: Christians believe in Hell and in justice.
Posted by: Gerry at March 7, 2009 7:58 AM
News flash to Gerry (BTW, is it 1992?) last time I checked Christians weren't really supposed to cheer the idea of someone spending eternity in hell.Posted by: Josephine at March 7, 2009 9:11 AM
You're just arguing semantics. A human embryo may possess unique genetic characteristics, but to consider it a "human being" (as it is commonly understood) because of that fact is like considering an acorn to be an oak tree because it will one day become what we understand an oak tree to be. I would note that you also misrepresent my position by omitting, in your response, what is the obvious crux of my post: that it is absurd to suggest human embryos should have some measure of "rights," regardless of whether scientists, philosophers, and theologians want to consider, in the abstract, whether a human embryo is a "human being" or not. I have no special or unique criteria for defining when a person becomes a "human being"; I am relying on a common sense approach that says that the value and therefore the supposed "rights" of a human embryo are not and cannot be coextensive with that of a person who exercises self-awareness and assumes the responsibilities of being considered a full member of the human race.
Posted by: Mr B
at March 7, 2009 9:33 AM
The embryos used for stem-cell research are leftover embryos from in-vitro fertilizations that would be destroyed as a matter of course anyway. Is "only" one treatment (which, no matter how minor, could save or improve lives) not enough to justify experimenting on embryos that would be destroyed anyway?
You're missing the point. Its ASCs and umbilical cord stem cells that have proved successful in treating illnesses. So far ESCs have not proven successful. Why waste time, money, energy, and resources? As I said, the scientific communities of other countries are successfully using ASCs. In S.Korea a paralyzed woman stood up for the first time in 18 years after treatment with ASCs.
I'll say it again, we are in reverse while the rest of the world is in overdrive.
But then, what can you expect from a country using windmills while the rest of the world uses their own oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power?
You can't protest a war without protesting the soldiers?
Concern for our soldiers did nothing to curtail the massive demonstrations against the Vietnam War. Our soldiers were even spat upon and cursed on return to the U.S.Posted by: Mary at March 7, 2009 9:44 AM
Maybe what you say is true, and adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells truly are better for research purposes. If this is the case then scientists will naturally come to this conclusion of their own accord and have no further interest in using stem cells taken from embryos. Until the scientific community comes to this conclusion, however, they should be allowed to receive government funding for whichever type of stem cell research they consider to have more potential.Posted by: Mr B at March 7, 2009 9:52 AM
Doesn't wash. Under what other circumstances would you support scientists overlooking important advances and instead spending time, resources, and money on what has already been proven a failure?
Don't you find it an embarassment that these countries are leaving us in the dust?
The late American entertainer Don Ho had to travel to Thailand(!) to receive ASC treatment on his ailing heart! The cells were processed in a laboratory in Israel.
Like I said Mr.B, what can you expect from a country that talks windmills.....Posted by: Mary at March 7, 2009 10:01 AM
You can't destroy life to HELP life.
If it came out that the brain cells of healthy Kindergarteners could cure Alzheimer's, how many people would be willing to kill a child to harvest their brain cells?
There probably would be a small select few willing to do so.
What Mary said IS TRUE. The problem is that the media and the greedy side of America has convinced those with family members with diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc, that ESCR will cure their family members. They have fallen for LIES.
They are so desperate to obtain cures that they don't care that 1000s of so called "left over" embryos will be destroyed to try to find maybe one treatment. And then they have to destroy more to find another and another and another.......
I believe Nazi Germany did experimentation on the elderly and disabled. Its not much different than that.
I value ALL human life. I have a cousin with severe diabetes, but I am pretty sure she wouldn't want human embryos destroyed to try to cure her.
Posted by: LizFromNebraska
at March 7, 2009 10:07 AM
Again, such matters are best left to the discretion of the scientists directly involved in that work. I'm not sure exactly how you qualify this particular brand of stem rell research as a "[proven] failure" but that seems premature, considering such research was restricted to private funding for the last eight years and thus has had severely limited opportunities. Did you ever consider that other countries "leaving us in the dust" in matters of scientific and medical advancements might have something to do with two decades of mostly conservative, anti-science, pro-superstition leadership?Posted by: Mr B at March 7, 2009 10:14 AM
"You can't destroy life to HELP life."
Of course you can. Do you really think that every single medical advancement that we presently enjoy was a result of perfectly ethical research and experimentation where nobody was harmed or violated? Sometimes, for the good of humanity, the end justifies the means. This is a concept that few people would openly agree with but most everyone tacitly understands and approves in some way. How could any war ever be justified if this wasn't the case?
"I believe Nazi Germany did experimentation on the elderly and disabled. Its not much different than that."
You obviously have very little idea of just what kind of experimentation Nazi Germany did to compare that to research on embryos which would be destroyed anyway.Posted by: Anonymous at March 7, 2009 10:25 AM
ASCs have a proven track record. Please point to the great successes of ESCs.
I gave just a few examples.
I well remember the outcry in support of transplanting fetal tissues and organs. Oh yes, cures were waiting around the corner for whatever afflicted you. The sick and disabled were exploited to promote this. Sound familiar?
It was all bogus. A theory and little more.
In desperation to get RU 486 into the country, it was also promoted as a magic bullet for whatever ails you. Have you heard of any diseases it cures? I have yet to.
For whatever reason these countries "leave us in the dust" we have them to look to for successes and leadership in ASC research. Why step backward?
BTW, I've heard of fertility clinics offering "designer babies". I'm not altogether convinced all this ESC research is motivated by humanitarian concerns.Posted by: Mary at March 7, 2009 10:45 AM
I don't know how much clearer I can make my position here, but you seem to be misinterpreting it. I haven't stated or suggested that this research is a "magic bullet" by any means. It doesn't matter how much, if any success embryonic stem cell research has thus far enjoyed. The option to explore it further should be open to the science community to proceed as they see fit.Posted by: Mr B at March 7, 2009 10:54 AM
"I'm not altogether convinced all this ESC research is motivated by humanitarian concerns. "
That's right, Mary. It is CLEARLY not. Why? Consider the fact that there are 30 or so existing embryonic stem cell lines which DID qualify for federal funding under the Bush administration. ESC lines, as far as we know, can differentiate themselves arbitrarily many times. That is, it would be no skin off anyone's back if they were to share their embryonic stem cell lines with another company because they wouldn't lose their embryonic stem cell line. You can continue to differentiate it, share it with everyone who wants to do experimentation on embryonic stem cells, and still have your own. This was, the more people who are looking for cures, the better chance there is of obtaining one. So why don't we see those who have one of the 30 embryonic stem cell lines sharing with others? Because they do not want someone else to get their patent. It is ALL about getting a patent and becoming a multi-BILLIONAIRE. That is what this is about. It's a rat race as to who can get results first, become famous, and wealthy beyond their wildest dreams. If cures are really, truly what scientists care about, why don't we see them sharing and forming a community, all working together with the embryonic stem cell lines they have, which will NEVER "run out." There's plenty to "go around."Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 7, 2009 10:55 AM
If you have no objections to scientists wasting resources, time, and your tax dollars on unproven "therapies" when successful therapies are out there to be explored and improved upon, that's fine with me.
Again, don't be so certain these scientists are motivated by purely humanitarian concerns.Posted by: Mary at March 7, 2009 10:59 AM
Bobby B 10:55am
Excellent point.Posted by: Mary at March 7, 2009 11:01 AM
No scientist is going to knowingly waste their limited time and resources on research they feel is a dead end. If they're conducting such research to begin with then they must feel it has some merit and I think that we should then defer to their superior professional opinion about the subject.Posted by: Mr B at March 7, 2009 11:07 AM
You're free to believe what you want. I choose not to be naive or blindly trusting of "superior professional opinion" and I suggest you not be either Mr.B.Posted by: Mary at March 7, 2009 11:49 AM
Bobby B. 10:55am
In addition to the point you make I was also thinking in terms of "designer humans". What's to stop these researchers from doing what they want with these embryos, creating and designing embryos,etc?
We forget that under the guise of "medical research", Nazi scientists, doctors, and death camp personnel were really attempting to produce what we would call "designer" humans.
There was certainly no shortage of experimental fodder, the hospitals, asylums, and death camps were full of them. They were all doomed anyway so this way they wouldn't go to waste.
These are your criteria for personhood:
"with that of a person who exercises self-awareness and assumes the responsibilities of being considered a full member of the human race.:"
Of course, this definition excludes born children and the mentally disabled, so it can't be considered the criteria for personhood.
As for your claim that ": it is absurd to suggest human embryos should have some measure of "rights," regardless of whether scientists, philosophers, and theologians want to consider, in the abstract, whether a human embryo is a "human being" or not"
You are artificially divorcing human rights from humanity. If science and logic tell us that embryos are human beings it is not some abstract thought that has no real world implications. Our rights are tied to our humanity. It is impossible to think of the matter only in abstract terms when we are talking about real human lives that hang in the balance.Posted by: Lauren at March 7, 2009 12:09 PM
"Morally and ethically protect life of Americans, right? Since the Bush administration obviously didn't mind ruining the lives of Iraqis? How about ruining the lives of the people in Afghanistan?"
-- and, with that, Josephine joins the thousands, who, unable to debate the ESCR issue on facts, changes the subject to Iraq. [ding!]
Mr B: "A human embryo may possess unique genetic characteristics, but to consider it a "human being" (as it is commonly understood) because of that fact is like considering an acorn to be an oak tree because it will one day become what we understand an oak tree to be."
Botanically speaking, an acorn is, indeed, a very young oak tree, just as a human embryo is, indeed, a human being. These are scientific facts, not religious viewpoints.
Anonymous: "You obviously have very little idea of just what kind of experimentation Nazi Germany did to compare that to research on embryos which would be destroyed anyway."
It's quite a flawed argument to state that these embryos will be destroyed "anyway." No human being should be deliberately destroyed "anyway." Each one should be given a chance to live and the destruction of human embryos should be outlawed worldwide.
Again, your "anyway" argument is akin to one that says we can either kill homeless people and then let their bodies go to "waste" by throwing them into the river, or we can kill them and "get some good out of them" by using them for medical research. The obvious rejoinder is that we shouldn't be killing homeless people, no matter what we intend to do with them afterwards.Posted by: bmmg39 at March 7, 2009 12:49 PM
You can't protest a war without protesting the soldiers?
Concern for our soldiers did nothing to curtail the massive demonstrations against the Vietnam War. Our soldiers were even spat upon and cursed on return to the U.S.
I'm pretty sure that was Josephine's point. Most people today would agree that the treatment of Vietnam soldiers was despicable. As such, people in recent years have been much more careful in protesting war, to try to make sure that they don't even appear to be protesting the soldiers themselves.Posted by: Alexandra at March 7, 2009 1:33 PM
My point was that if the people feel that strongly against the war, they will let their feelings be known, whatever they think of the soldiers.
Members of our own gov't were accusing our soldiers of atrocities in Iraq. Sadly, those opposing a war may not take our soldiers into consideration.Posted by: Mary at March 7, 2009 2:43 PM
News flash. George Bush is no longer 'el prsidente'. Your guy BHO isn now POTUS.
PBHO could issue the order today to begin withdrawing troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan.
You are being deployed to Iraq because your Commander in Chief desires you to go.
Or PBHO does not care one way or the other about you, your fellow soldiers, or your fellow americans.
BHO spent a lot of time and energy reminding us, repetitively, that HE was the president in waiting and HE is still reminding us that HE won the election.
In fact HE has not stopped campaigning. The Obama campaign bus is still meandering down the road. Nothing has changed but the new bodies who have been thrown under the bus.
It will be interesting to see if your 'experince' in Iraq will change your perspective.
I for one will be curious to hear you share an 'informed opinion' about freedom and sacrifice, and war and peace.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac
at March 7, 2009 4:52 PM
Mary, I said it's HARD to protest a war and not protest the soldiers. My parents, for example, thing this war is one of the most disgusting things the US has ever done to itself. They can't really speak out though, because they DO support the soldiers. It's not the fault of soldiers. We're kind of supposed to protect, not terrorize other countries, which is what we're being used for... luckily, there is at least an end in sight now.
As for Vietnam, Mary, it's not the sixties. There is no faster way to get your butt handed to you then by talking smack about soldiers.
(If any of that jargin proves too much that I'm only 20, I'm sorry. I just can't think of a more appropriate way to say it!)
"My point was that if the people feel that strongly against the war, they will let their feelings be known, whatever they think of the soldiers."
Having experienced it first hand, I disagree completely. Have you ever had someone explain to you that they don't hate YOU, they just happen to hate what you stand for? I have!Posted by: Josephine at March 7, 2009 5:18 PM
"News flash. George Bush is no longer 'el prsidente'. Your guy BHO isn now POTUS."
Yup. For forty whole days!... you realize he, in the several weeks he's been in office has already set official dates for the end? Do you know how exciting that is!
"You are being deployed to Iraq because your Commander in Chief desires you to go. "
Not true. Deployments are thought out LONG ahead of time. My deployment was thought out LONG ago, but they tried to keep me in school as long as possible.
"PBHO could issue the order today to begin withdrawing troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan. "
He's leaving us there because of the 50% of Americans (I call them the stupid Americans..) that would call for his beheading, not to mention that we DO have to clean up some of the mess WE made over the last seven years.
"Or PBHO does not care one way or the other about you, your fellow soldiers, or your fellow americans."
I'd appreciate it if you didn't talk about MY CIC that way. Also, please capitolize "Americans"... you're talking to a soldier.
Posted by: Josephine
at March 7, 2009 5:24 PM
Everything else you said-- I don't see how that had to do with anything. He is reminding us that he won the presidency? Because he's president? In that case, John McCain is reminding us that he lost by being a loser all the time, I guess?
I understand what you mean. What I meant was that if people strongly object they will make their feelings known. The Vietnam War was an example. The intensity of the anger and opposition to this war was so great that protests and demonstrations were vast. BTW, many also claimed they supported our troops, but that they wanted them to come home.
Personally, I think Vietnam is by far the biggest mess we ever got into, Iraq doesn't hold a candle to it, and I am absolutely convinced the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a "provocation" concocted to give Lyndon Johnson a free hand in running the war as he saw fit.
I've had people tell me they don't hate me, but they don't like my racial background, my nationality, and my government.
Tell Senator John Kerry and Congressman Jack Murtha about talking smack about our soldiers.Posted by: Mary at March 7, 2009 5:40 PM
I suggest you resign, our military needs better soldiers than you.Posted by: Jasper at March 7, 2009 8:10 PM
I think that's a little harsh. Though she and I may disagree, I respect and thank Josephine for her willingness to serve and sacrifice for our country.Posted by: Mary at March 7, 2009 8:31 PM
Jasper, have you ever been in the military?
I'm going to say no, since you think you can "resign"... the thought of "resigning" from the military is pretty absurd.
It must be easy for you to talk about war, knowing you and your friends don't have to go to it.Posted by: Josephine at March 7, 2009 8:44 PM
"Jasper, have you ever been in the military?"
Yes, 62Foxtrot. U.S Army Reserve 85-91
My brother served in Veitnam from 66-68 in Da-Nang. My father in WW2. My sister was in Marines.
"I think that's a little harsh. Though she and I may disagree, I respect and thank Josephine for her willingness to serve and sacrifice for our country."
Josephine has a bad, defeatest attitude. It's not good for troop moral, this speads to other soldiers. It's not good. She should quit. Stay home.
I respectfully disagree with you but appreciate and thank the members of your family for their service and dedication to our country, as I do Josephine.
BTW, my father was one of the survivors of the 101st at the Siege of Bastogne, a source of tremendous pride to me. It was his commanding general who told the Germans "NUTS" when given the option of surrender.Posted by: Mary at March 7, 2009 9:03 PM
My apologies, I missed that in your post. Thank you for YOUR service and dedication as well.Posted by: Mary at March 7, 2009 9:05 PM
"survivors of the 101st at the Siege of Bastogne"
Wow, you must be proud of your Dad Mary...
What Josephine is doing is wrong, if she has this type of attitude over in Iraq, it will have a negative effect on the other troops...I didn't mean to say she was a bad soldier, but she really should change her attitude.Posted by: Jasper at March 7, 2009 9:14 PM
You must be fully aware then, that you can't "quit" the military? You can't NOT GO on a deployment?
Now, do you think it's just me who has this type of attitude? I'm not kidding, Jasper, every single person in my unit hates us going there, hates being there, and thinks it's all a complete mistake. You can say that people didn't think that 7 years ago-- but 7 years ago the people that are getting sent over now were in the 7th/8th grade. It was just a little bit before I joined that America was told "we won"..
MY attitude isn't spreading to other soldiers-- we all have minds of our owns.
"She should quit. Stay home."
That's a good attitude, though.
Thanks, I really do appreciate it.
I am, thank you. According to my mother he was bored with the regular army and entered the paratroopers. I have his discharge papers. They show he went to Europe in November of 1944, I'm sure he thought he was at the tail end of the war!! Little did he know.
He showed me his "war wounds" which occured sometime early in 1945. My mother informed me that in fact he smucked a tree on one of his paratroop jumps. Technically they were war wounds but not the bullet wounds he wanted me to believe they were. He was hospitalized and honorably discharged around the time the war ended.Posted by: Mary at March 7, 2009 9:33 PM
You are entirely welcome but again, the thanks are due to you and Jasper as well for the service by both of you to our country.Posted by: Mary at March 7, 2009 9:37 PM
I'm glad your father's wounds were from a tree. A saying I hear all the time is "Civilians are impressed with purple hearts. In the army, it means you suck at your job."
A little heartless, but still funny..
Anyway, that's really cool. Can I asked why he got discharged?Posted by: Josephine at March 7, 2009 9:39 PM
Have a positive outlook, Iraq is doing alot better now thanks to the surge John McCain pushed for and Obama was against.
my advice, don't go over there being negative. Don't you want to have a purpose? have a positive impact? Don't follow the crowd.Posted by: Jasper at March 7, 2009 9:39 PM
Certainly. It was the end of the war and he was hospitalized up until then.
He'd had no plans to make a career of the military.
Jasper and Josephine,
I just thought it was so ironic how my father survived the Siege of Bastogne, hand to hand combat, etc., only to end up being injured by a tree!Posted by: Mary at March 7, 2009 9:51 PM
Yes, that is something Mary!...Posted by: Jasper at March 7, 2009 10:10 PM
Excuse me but did you say your commanders were trying to delay your deployment to Iraq or Aghanistan by keeping you in school?
If that is the case, why?
What is their motivation for thwarting the will of their superiors.
(By the way do not get your panties in a bunch because I fail to capitalize the 'a' in Americans. I routinely fail to capitalize the 'c' in Christian and 'g' in God. It has more to do with lack of tactile acuity and poor typing skills than dis-respect.)
You can choose to disobey an order.
You may choose not to disobey because the probable consequences of disobedience are greater than the cost of obedience.
Soldiers make that calculation all the time.
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at March 7, 2009 11:24 PM
Ask your mom and dad to write a letter to PBHO/CIC requesting that he excuse you from deploying to Irag or Afghanistan.
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at March 7, 2009 11:29 PM
"Excuse me but did you say your commanders were trying to delay your deployment to Iraq or Aghanistan by keeping you in school?"
No. They were trying to delay it because I'm in school. As they were trying to at least let me finish my semester. Instead, they kept me in long enough that I can be able to finish my semester on line. If I'm uneducated, I'm not as useful to them. They want me to finish my degree-- once I do, I'll be commissioned.
I don't believe in the war in Iraq and I think it's wrong. I'm going to work in a hospital, which I 100% is something I think I NEED to do. I'm not going to let my friends go while I sit at home. I don't have a "conscientious objections" besides the fact that I think the whole thing is flat out dumb. However, I support my fellow soldiers and I'd do that better with them then just saying I do over here.
(You know, like places that advertise "We support our troops" but when you ask them HOW they support their troops, they really just mean it's because they have a sign.)Posted by: Josephine at March 8, 2009 12:12 AM
My point was that if the people feel that strongly against the war, they will let their feelings be known, whatever they think of the soldiers.
I suppose we'll just have to disagree. I think that people are capable of understanding that it's not in their best interests to behave in certain ways. The treatment of Vietnam soldiers by protesters was atrocious in many instances, and discredited any message the anti-war side had. It hurt their side, in the long run. I think people are smart enough to look at that situation and see mistakes that were made, and move forward actively wanting to avoid making those same mistakes.Posted by: Alexandra at March 8, 2009 7:53 AM
I hope you're right.Posted by: Mary at March 8, 2009 8:46 AM
Retired U.S.Army Drill Sgt here.
I seriously hope you change your attitude, your outlook on things will change the moral of the troops you come into contact with, and at a hospital they need hope and support not war bashing. I hope you know your public comments are also grounds for insubordination and terms for dishonorable discharge. If I were your bootcamp DI I would've weeded you out, I have a nack for weeding out weak soldiers! All I ask is keep your opinions to yourself, your in the military and not the civilian sector and opinions get soldiers killed!Posted by: Judge At the End at March 14, 2009 10:30 AM