I disagree with him, however, just as I disagreed with him in 2001.
I do not think that the federal government should fund embryonic stem cell research except in those lines that were already derived (whether it is 78 or 22 is immaterial to me).
We cannot stop this from happening in other countries. We cannot even stop it in the private sector. But by gosh, we shouldn't be forced to pay for it!
On the practical issue, it deems to me that if the stem cells in the existent lines are degrading, then it means that in order to have viable cells researchers will have to have a continuing supply of new cells, an incentive to procure even more embryos.
Frist has been consistent. I don't agree with his stance. I also want to know why, in the middle of all that is going on in Congress and internationally, he picked this moment (right before recess) to come out with this statement.
I understand what you're saying. I'm not happy about the whole area, personally, but it is clearly something that has to be dealt with. Banning stem cell research isn't going to happen. Banning IVF isn't going to happen, though in MY point of view, that is the moral/ ethical thing to do. Clearly, we need some kind of handle on this situation, and it seems Frist is struggling with how to open a real dialog about how to do that to get the best bill out of it. He's really accurate about the House bill being horrible, and in honesty, there is a very good chance of the President's veto being overridden on this issue, so the bill that is passed better be as good as possible, ethically. I also think it HIGHLY unlikely that legal restrictions and sanctions can ever get passed by the Congress without some type of involvement in funding in reciprocation, though I consider that very odious.
I'm not at all happy about this issue being even on the table, but those are the times we live in, I guess.
As far as timing, the timing is natural, given that the House only recently passed that bill. Frist didn't choose the timing - he responded to the imminent arrival of that bill in the Senate.
On the practical issue, it deems to me that if the stem cells in the existent lines are degrading, then it means that in order to have viable cells researchers will have to have a continuing supply of new cells, an incentive to procure even more embryos.
---->
I didn't respond to this. It looks to me like Frist is concerned that if something isn't done, IVF practitioners would start providing that incentive, and he's hoping to deter that incentive in his complete "rewrite" of the House bill. If I read his speech correctly, also, he wants to drastically limit the untimate number of cell lines, and hopefully eventually eliminate the need for embrionic stem cells altogether.