Posted on 07/29/2005 12:15:49 PM PDT by AFPhys
Have you read his speech yet and thought about what he said?
I'm still looking for him to be questioned by Hannity, Rush, and others before I come to any conclusions about his motives and where I stand on this issue. He's got lots of 'splainin' to do - but I see he's got some real good points made in his speech, and (to me - sorry, Pukin Dog) he seems to be trying to make what he sees as a minor mid-course correction to the excellent and stunningly wise policy that President Bush instituted a few years ago.
If you don't think the "heart transplant [question] is not even slightly comparable.", you don't clearly recall the heart-rending arguments during the time those were first being discussed. Right now, in our "new-found wisdom", it is easy to make such a statement (though to be honest I'm not sure I would even agree that we "decided" that question correctly) and most would agree that heart transplants are ethical. I'm not sure I agree that they are(!) but nearly no one would agree with me on that.
In any event, to get back to my point, the ethical questions of heart transplants were just as passionately debated as the stem cell question now, and along many of the same battle lines.
Thank you for defining the difference between blastocyst and cord stem cells for me.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/896uigck.asp?pg=1
Read that article. It explains it better than I can.
I thought that was a real disgusting distortion by the LASlimes, too. I wonder if they've corrected the story by now. I sent them EMail encouraging them to correct it, but I'm not going to bother to find out myself.
The President, who I frequently disagree with, is a budding genius, compared to the musclebound idiot we have running this state, embarrassingly under the banner of the CAGOP!!! We're just squandering billions on this same research that Frist now likes, at a time when Arnold is begging Washington D.C. for "CA's fair share!" Holey Toledo! I'm livin in the danged "TWILIGHT ZONE!!!"
Frist doesn't like stem cell research. He *sold* his position on that issue in exchange for getting 4 Supreme Court Justice appointments (O'Conner, Rehnquist, Stevens, and Ginsberg's replacement) confirmed in the Senate.
Politics, like making sausage, is not a pretty business.
I'm not at all happy about the embryonic angle, either, thus far. I'm still listening, and hoping for Frist to clarify, and seeing if he's really going to try to make this a much better bill than the House's, and have it something that just is like a mid-course correction to the President's excellent (in my mind) policy.
I am troubled, as a scientist, that there turned out to be only 22 viable lines, and that we now know they are deteriorating. I am troubled by these created cells/ blastocysts/(babies?) that will just be destroyed by their parents (who I can understand may not want them "adopted" by others). [Perhaps they should not have been 'created' in the first place.]
To me, now that I've mulled this over just a bit, Frist's strongest argument is the "it seems adult stem cells may be able to be rejuvinated, but we need to have GOOD embryonic stem cells to find out if they're REALLY rejuvinated", and that in my mind is a clearly desirable line of research. He certainly knows much more about this subject than I will ever have the background to comprehend, but the need for a good "control" sample/ specimen is CLEAR to ANY scientist, and it should be clear to a layman.
I'm in total agreement that human embryos must not be commodity. It seems Frist desires that, too, and he states that the House bill will not prevent that.
I'm so up in the air about this...
Be sure and make a distinction between unethical embryonic stem cell research that depends upon the destruction of human embryos and ethical, non-embryonic stem cell research that does not destroy human beings at the earliest stage of life.
There is a huge difference.
There is a huge difference.
You bet there is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I respectfully disagree.
Thank you for spending your time to craft this well thought out post.
Where did you see Hatch's statements? Is there a transcript or partial transcript posted somewhere? What show did he appear on?
I'm really interested in why he thinks, "Frisk's stand on this is good for America."
All three.
Ahh, but the decision was made to wait until brain death (which is the end of the organized function of the body as organism), not to harvest the donors before death. (some people are uncomfortable with the brain death definition and others are impatient with it - that's why there are strict guidelines for determining brain death, lately by the total lack of blood flow to the brain stem.)(soon, by functional MRI or PET?)
On the other hand, the AMA approved harvesting the organs of anencephalic babies back in the '90's and then reversed itself after public outcry.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/12724.html
That is awesome.
Thank you for linking the article. I'll look at that and mull it over carefully, as I consider the other discussions of this issue.
Awesome that she was treated - it changed her blood type? Wow.
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.