FRIST COMMENTS ON STEM CELL RESEARCH - Floor Statement -- Remarks As Prepared For Delivery

Senator Bill Frist website ^ | July 29, 2005 | Sen. Bill Frist

[Lone Red Ranger]

If nothing else moving to allow private sector research opens the door to research and cures...Not that the government has to pay for it...But, that's another debate. I think overall, Frist makes good points.

What this actualy got me to thinking was, "Is Bill Frist running for President?" It looks like a coalition building move - taking key 'abortion-related' arguments away from the left.

[Now_is_The_Time]

Wasn't he elected to stop this kind of Culture of Death crap?

[Stellar Dendrite]

So regardless of my logic and whether you think it's bizzare or not do you or do you not support more socialism ie federal funding for stem cell research?

Did you support the prescription drug entitlement?

Did you support 50% more funding for education than clinton ever gave?

[weegee]

If the medical application goes from trial to implemented procedure in the field, hospitals will require a greater supply of stem cells.

[sonofagun]

I don't see the problem with using embryos created in the process of fertility treatments which are due to be destroyed anyway.

Hmm...

With this line of reasoning, we should be harvesting organs from death row inmates since they will be discarded anyway.

Maybe we should look at the ethics of creating embryos in fertility clinics that may end up being discarded.

These same clinics will selectively abort multiple fetuses that result from fertility therapy since the mother to be intends to only have one child.

I guess these are babies that will be discarded anyway.

[weegee]

Those with brains should not be so short sighted.

[FlatLandBeer]

How long before Frist is called a RINO?

[Fitzcarraldo]

IMO there is a problem using embryonic stem cells for treatment because of the tissue rejection issue. Much progress had been made using stems cells harvested from the patient's own body.

[weegee]

Ironically the left will come up with more arguments to abort healthy babies (for their cells) than defenses for aborting defective babies (would their stem cells be as healthy?)

It is genetic cannibalism.

[Dr.Hilarious]

Sure. I'm not for federal funding on this at all, I'm merely commenting on the specific application. In fact I can't think of a single reason for federal funding of this. As for the greater supply, I do think the federal government should have oversight in terms of supply, as I imagine they do in terms of organ donation. If it can be limited to these specific sources, I don't have a problem with it, as I've said.

[stocksthatgoup]

Why let ethics get in the way?

[jern]

I guess since the majority of people could care less one way or the other. stem cell research is soooooooooooo important.

[Dr.Hilarious]

With this line of reasoning, we should be harvesting organs from death row inmates since they will be discarded anyway.

Nice try, but if you don't see the difference between forcibly removing peolpe's organs and thus killing them, and using something about to be thrown in the trash, there's no reasoning with you.

I know it makes you all feel so high and mighty with these meandering assumptions about other people's views of abortion, but it's just silly and beside the point. You all have your fun, now, but I'll stick to those posts which stick to the actual point.

[XR7]

Stem cell lines.
All very scientific.
Everything will be all legal, of course.
Heard Howard Stern on the radio the other day. That paragon
of virtue was complaining about how President Bush is "forcing"
people to leave the US to get proper health care, referring to a news
story about some quadraplegic who is going to the Netherlands to
get stem cells implanted - as if that is going to cure him.

The bottom line is, to have a steady supply of stem cells (which the
activists say will cure just about anything that ails humanity) you
gotta breed human embryos, and kill them, to satisfy the stem cell
lobbyists. Of course, umbilical cord stem cells are just as good -
but they don't want to be limited to that.

After all, if we limit stem cells to only umbilical cord cells, then we
are saying that Roe v. Wade might be wrong, and that a human
embryo is a human being. And, if we kill the baby human being,
well, you could call that murder. Can't have that.

SO let's make it respectable and pretend it is. After all, killing a few
"potential" humans to save some old geezer's life (or even a child,
for the children, you know) is worth it, isn't it? After all, the most
respected doctors, scholars, and legal ethicists have assured us that
everything is completely legal, of course, and will be done
under the strictest medically supervised, sanitary conditions.
-- Your papers please?

[Yaelle]

Abortion is a completely separate argument and should be kept that way. If the embryos used came from abortions I'm 100% against it. It's like the difference between donated organs and stolen ones, to me.

It's not a separate argument. If parents say they don't want their created but not yet born offspring, what difference does it make how far along the babies are?

There are millions, millions of people who would love those embryos people are "donating" to science. But the couples say to themselves, "We couldn't bear it if Mr. and Mrs. Smith in San Jose brought up our genetic kids. Far better we destroy them or donate them for experiments." THIS is the tragedy of extra embryos. IVF is a miracle, a blessed wondrous scientific achievement, that has made it possible for so many to become families. But let's not LITERALLY throw the babies out with the bathwater. Families WANT and wait on LISTS to receive these frozen embryos. Very few people choose to donate them to loving couples because they feel "icky" about others raising their genetic kids.

Isn't that EXACTLY the real abortion issue? People would rather the child created "didn't exist" than have a loving family raise it.

[EternalVigilance]

How long before Frist is called a RINO?

PLINO.

[Dr.Hilarious]

So regardless of my logic and whether you think it's bizzare or not do you or do you not support more socialism ie federal funding for stem cell research? Did you support the prescription drug entitlement? Did you support 50% more funding for education than clinton ever gave?

Hey, you already said I was a sheep who supprted everything proposed by anyone with an R after his name, so why are you asking? You have your mind made up, enjoy yourself.

[Dr.Hilarious]

I respect your point, but it swerves so far off THE point that I don't even know how to respond except to say that no one will ever be born from these embryos discarded in fertility clinics. I'm against abortion, take that or leave it, it doesn't really matter to me. Have a good day.

[Yaelle]

An open letter to Sen. Frist:

Dear Senator Frist,
Many abortions today are performed in the 5th month of pregnancy, when genetic problems can be detected by amniocentesis. So when the pregnant woman says that she is sure she wants to abort the baby, now scientists can swoop down after the doctors remove it and take its body to help old people with diseases? Basically, if parents don't want a baby, we can use it for parts?

Jonathan Swift's Proposal got it about right, then?

Sincerely,
FReeper Yaelle

[lepton]

What he has done, is show himself to be without core values.

I suspect that he's gotten all of his information from lobbyists and a surface smattering of the concept of what they want ESCs to do. The only reason to pursue embryonic stem cells is the concept that they are completely undifferentiated. That doesn't mean that it is necessary, or even practical to start there in the research process. So far all appearances are that adult stem cells are much better prepared for what we want to use them for, and ESCs are an unnecessary complication.