Frist has done more than capitulate -- he has collaborated with the enemies of the unborn.
He is a Quisling
Bill Frist and Vidkun Quisling*
Separated at birth?
Fristling = a perfidious man who collaborates with the enemy to betray vulnerable humans
Posted on 07/29/2005 10:49:37 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
With his Friday speech on the Senate floor announcing his support for federal funding of new embryonic stem cell research, Senate majority leader Bill Frist did the wrong thing at the wrong time.
For four years, embryo research advocates have claimed that the Bush administration has "banned stem cell research." Not so. The issue in question is federal funding for embryonic stem cell research--research in which new embryos will be destroyed. Such research has been, and is, legal, and while the president has endorsed a ban on human cloning, he has not proposed to outlaw the destruction of embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF). He simply does not want the federal government to fund or promote research that requires the ongoing destruction of embryos.
In fact, for all the complaints of scientists that the American government is standing in the way of their pioneering efforts, the striking fact about the present situation is that there are virtually no legal prohibitions on many radical areas of biotechnology. There are no limits on human cloning, no limits on fetal farming, no limits on the creation of man-animal hybrids, and no limits on the creation of human embryos solely for research and destruction. It is in this rather permissive moral and legal climate that Frist seeks to remove one of the few public boundaries that still exist.
In May, the House of Representatives passed a bill, sponsored by Representatives Michael Castle and Diana DeGette, that would authorize federal funding for research using stem cells derived from IVF embryos left over in fertility clinics, unwanted by the parents who produced them, and destroyed by researchers. This means the federal government would promote what many citizens see as a grave evil: the deliberate destruction of nascent human life. The legislation, which President Bush has promised to veto, would make embryo destruction a nationally sponsored project. It is a most immoderate approach to a morally weighty issue.
It is immoderate partly because it is so unnecessary. When it comes to stem cell research, there are many sources of support, some of them from other levels of government. In 2004 (to our regret), California passed a law providing $3 billion in funding for embryo research and research cloning--far more money than even the most pro-stem cell administration would ever provide through the NIH. Meanwhile, embryo destruction proceeds apace in private laboratories around the country, and in some states beyond California with generous public funding. So why does it make sense to force citizens to become complicit in an activity they see as wrong, when funding for such research is readily available from nonfederal sources? Why not support the current national policy, which neither funds nor bans embryo research? And why call for funding research on the so-called "spare embryos" without first demanding limits on other, even more egregious projects--such as creating and destroying embryos solely for research?
In his speech endorsing Castle-DeGette, Frist did also call for banning the creation of embryos solely for research and for banning human cloning. This makes him more responsible than most embryo research advocates. But he did not make his support for funding research using the "spares" contingent on setting such limits. So the effect of Frist's remarks was to strengthen the hand of those no-limits senators who wish to advance the very kinds of research that Frist still says he believes should be out of bounds (at least for now).
The incoherence of Frist's position is staggering. In his Senate speech, he explained that the "embryo is a human life at its earliest stage of development." He said that he believes, as a person of faith and a man of science, that "human life begins at conception." He reminded us that "we were all once embryos." He called on all citizens, including scientists, to treat human embryos with the "utmost dignity and respect." It was a clear and elegant statement on the dignity of early human life, backed up by a doctor's understanding of elementary embryology.
But then, as if giving a different speech, Frist called on the federal government to promote, with taxpayer dollars, the ongoing destruction of human embryos. In a television interview that day, he said that research using and destroying the "spares" can be done ethically so long as there is a "moral framework around informed consent." But if embryos deserve respect as nascent human lives, as Frist says he believes, it should not matter whether researchers have permission from their parents to destroy them. If embryos are "human life at its earliest stage," as Frist says he believes, then none of us possesses the authority to consent to their destruction. To promote embryo destruction and still claim to be "pro-life," as Frist did throughout his speech, is absurd.
Frist justified his position on using the "spares" by pointing to the unique scientific promise of embryonic stem cell research. He said that our policies must evolve with the times, and that "the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases." But by this logic, the more advanced research that will surely exist in the near future--like the mass creation of genetically tailored embryonic stem cells, produced by creating and destroying cloned human embryos--will justify shifting the moral and political boundaries yet again. It undermines the effort to ban human cloning, as Sen. Frist says he wants to do. And it may justify funding human cloning, as Sen. Frist may one day be convinced to do by his own reasoning. If the respect due to embryos is so little that the government should promote their destruction with NIH dollars, why not fund human cloning for research purposes, too? If the standards of human dignity evolve with the latest research possibilities, why not harvest human fetuses in animal wombs, if doing so is more likely to advance science and cure disease?
This moving of the boundaries is exactly what the pro-embryo research side wants to do. Those who defend research cloning, for example, claim that we need to do it in order to produce genetically controlled stem cells. They say that this will allow us to build disease-specific models and to transplant cells without fear of immune-rejection. The scientific argument for research cloning is thus also an argument against the clinical value of using the "spares," which are far less useful because we cannot control the genomes of the stem cells derived from them. But these advocates know that funding the cloning of human embryos for research purposes is not today's fight, but tomorrow's fight. And so they need to set a precedent that public support for embryo, fetal, and cloning research depends not on the moral character of the research itself but on its projected scientific value in light of the latest laboratory findings or speculations. Senator Frist, with his speech, gave in to this kind of situational ethics, and became an ally of those who seek to do what the senator says he wants to stop.
Edmund Burke once said that "the sides of sickbeds are not the academies for forming statesmen and legislators." There is growing reason to believe that Burke was right. But here is one thing that can be done between now and when the Senate takes up this issue, most likely in September: Those pro-embryo research politicians who rushed to praise Frist's wisdom and courage should now be forced to take a position on the rest of Frist's recommendations: Will they agree to ban the creation of any human embryo solely for research? Will they agree to make federal funding of research involving destroyed IVF-embryos contingent on such a ban? Or is their support for funding the "spares" really just one step toward funding everything--creation for destruction, research cloning, fetal farming--and a way to weaken those, like President Bush, who oppose the steady march toward the brave new world?
And Frist could still make his support for the Castle-DeGette bill depend on winning the support of his pro-embryo research colleagues for a ban on the creation of human embryos solely for research and destruction. This, at least, would make supporting limited research on the "spares" contingent on stopping the full-scale instrumentalization of nascent human life. Such a "Frist Compromise" would not, on balance, make us a better country. It would not settle this divisive moral issue. For our part, we would still oppose any federal funding of embryo-destructive research. But at least such a "Frist Compromise" would represent an effort to hold the nation to some moral standard, instead of simply capitulating to those who seek a national blessing for embryo destruction.
--Eric Cohen and William Kristol
Senator Frist is seriesly trying to track to the left in the hopes that he will get elected President. This shenanigan shows he hasn't a snowball's chance in H-E-double toothpicks.
throw frist overboard, we need a new majority leader (and NOT lott!)
Is there anyone we can trust to actually fight for a conservative agenda? Cornyn maybe?
is tom coburn the real deal?
I am beginning to think Frist really does not want to be President and is doing everything in his power to make sure it never happens.
This would be President Bush's first veto, right? And Sens. Frist and Hatch would be rallying for an override.
It sure sounds like he wants to get out of politics -- maybe he wants a job at a University... like Harvard.
Frist has done more than capitulate -- he has collaborated with the enemies of the unborn.
He is a Quisling
Bill Frist and Vidkun Quisling*
Separated at birth?
Fristling = a perfidious man who collaborates with the enemy to betray vulnerable humans
I honestly don't know. What is up with the republicans? They have won the WH, the senate and congress yet act like they are in power by permission of the democrats. When are they going to grow some stones and act like leaders? The American people have given them a mandate. It's not like there's any question about what we want them to do.
A true advocate of conservative political positions would be 'outed', attacked by 'moderates' and Demo's, and not be able to garner enough votes.
At this time, I hear of no discussion in the Senate regarding Frist's tenure.
I never liked him from the start. He started rolling over almost immediately.
With a straight face yesterday, Juan Williams told FOXNews Special Report roundtable, that Frist's change of position on embryonic stem cell research, "won't hurt Frist a bit". Juan is an idiot, but we know Frist isn't.
What can Frist be thinking?
Unlike others who think Frist will make a serious presidential run, maybe he just likes the sound of that tinkling cymbal. Maybe Frist figured out he didn't have a snowball's chance and prefers to slither back into the politically correct good graces of the medical/scientific gods. As a radio reporter said yesterday, this isn't a simple Frist flip flop. It's actually a "flip, flop, flip" because it puts Frist back to his original embryonic stem cell research position.
One thing for certain, (in my mind anyway), Frist's inexplicable action yesterday, was the best thing that could have happened to George Allen's chances to become the next Republican candidate for president in 2008. .
Here's something I got in email:
"FRIST'S SPEECH [by Ramesh Ponnuru]
In reading it, I was trying to figure out how he would attempt to reconcile his support for embryo-destructive research with being pro-life--that is, with his belief that human beings have rights from their earliest moments. Other self-declared pro-lifers have tried to square this circle. Would Frist, like Orrin Hatch, deny that human beings that aren't in the womb are human beings? Would he, like Joe Barton, say that human embryos would, if they could, volunteer themselves as sacrifices the way soldiers do?
Nope. Frist doesn't bother trying to explain himself. Here's the passage in full:
"I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at conception. It is at this moment that the organism is complete -- yes, immature -- but complete. An embryo is nascent human life. It’s genetically distinct. And it’s biologically human. It’s living. This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn’t just a matter of faith. It’s a fact of science.
"Our development is a continuous process -- gradual and chronological. We were all once embryos. The embryo is human life at its earliest stage of development. And accordingly, the human embryo has moral significance and moral worth. It deserves to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect.
"I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported. But, just as I said in 2001, it should advance in a manner that affords all human life dignity and respect -- the same dignity and respect we bring to the table as we work with children and adults to advance the frontiers of medicine and health."
So: I believe that taxes are too high and should be lower. I also believe that taxes should be raised, in a manner consistent with the dignity of taxpayers. Does what Frist said make any more sense than that?
The speech in full is a logical train wreck. He says that he still believes what he believed in 2001: that the research should be federally funded with certain restrictions. Then he says that the main funding bill doesn't meet his conditions. Then he says he'll support it anyways. Then he says that he's pro-life and supports alternative courses of research that don't kill human embryos. Then he reiterates his support for embryo-destructive research. It's as though (at least) two different people were giving two different speeches."
From the article: Frist doesn't bother trying to explain himself
Frist is using a variation of the "argument" put forth by Kennedy, Kerry [insert lib politician name]
"For four years, embryo research advocates have claimed that the Bush administration has "banned stem cell research." Not so. The issue in question is federal funding for embryonic stem cell research--research in which new embryos will be destroyed. Such research has been, and is, legal, and while the president has endorsed a ban on human cloning, he has not proposed to outlaw the destruction of embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF). He simply does not want the federal government to fund or promote research that requires the ongoing destruction of embryos."
Federal funding is the key. I hope President Bush does veto this bill.
" But then, as if giving a different speech, Frist called on the federal government to promote, with taxpayer dollars, the ongoing destruction of human embryos."
--->
This somewhat mischaracterizes Frist's actual speech, which is HERE:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1453358/posts
FRIST COMMENTS ON STEM CELL RESEARCH - Floor Statement -- Remarks As Prepared For Delivery
I encourage everyone to read what he SAID before they spend a whole lot of energy on what people say he said.
It is in this rather permissive moral and legal climate that Frist seeks to remove one of the few public boundaries that still exist.
--->
This seems to be counter to what Frist said, too. In fact much of this whole article seems somewhat misinformed, and misinforming.
I read Frist's statement to say that he thinks the House legislation is very bad, and that it needs much more tightening of the "public boundries that exist", and that the bill he would encourage the Senate to devise would advance the discussion of this whole realm of what ought to be allowed, and in fact impose drastic restrictions in this whole area that the authors imply are needed.
I'm a bit concerned here that they may be intentionally misrepresenting what he said, but in any event, it seems they might better try to ally themselves with Frist in an attempt to gain the restrictions they desire, and that Frist is probably in agreement with them in many areas.
After reading both the Ponnuru article, and this article twice, I am even more certain that the authors of both pieces misunderstand what Frist clearly says in his speech.
I'll have to read it yet again.
I've read it twice. I'm beginning to think that these authors haven't even done that, and yet have taken it upon themselves to do analysis. Personally, I wish they would actually ask Frist for an interview to get clarification if they can't follow what he said. It looks to me like he has much more in mind as to how he wishes the Senate bill would look than can be contained the short speech he gave.
Here, again, is his actual speech:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1453358/posts
FRIST COMMENTS ON STEM CELL RESEARCH - Floor Statement -- Remarks As Prepared For Delivery
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.