BlogHer - Bush Promises to Veto Senate Stem Cell Bill - Comments

How embryos are being protected from stem cell reseach...

Catherine Morgan — Mon, 21 May 2007 21:16:16 -0500

This is a one minute video of what happens to a frozen embryo instead of being used for medical research. This is a perfect example of how our government is protecting life.

Catherine Morgan
Women 4 Hope and Be The Change You Want To See In Yourself

Whose Life Is Worth More?

Rebecca Hartong — Mon, 21 May 2007 21:00:19 -0500

When a person who is opposed to abortion or stem cell research tells me it's because they "believe destruction of life is immoral and unethical" I like to pretend that person must, like me, be a strict vegetarian. After all, the simple truth is that, in terms of its ability to feel pain and fear, a chicken has more on the ball than an aborted fetus. Yet, it's been my experience that the great majority of "pro life" people aren't willing to extend their concern for life beyond their own species. Yes, life has value -- ALL life. Human and non-human. Adult and unborn.
---
Rebecca Hartong

Hi Bob. I appreciate your

Dana J. Tuszke — Mon, 21 May 2007 16:34:37 -0500

Hi Bob. I appreciate your comment. It's an interesting thought isn't it?

Is your my morality stronger than others' because I believe in God? It's possible. Does that make me holier than thou? Not in the least. I'm a sinner like you and everyone.

The only difference is that I believe destruction of life is immoral and unethical. The supporters of ESCR do not. They fail to consider embryos human life. I cannot stand to watch this happen and I am starting to believe that if more people believed in the sanctity of human life we wouldn't be funding the destruction of embryos.

Dana from The Dana Files.

Re: I think the lack of God is

bobafifi — Mon, 21 May 2007 11:44:49 -0500

> Many people have no morals anymore.

So you have to believe in God to have morals?? Interesting.

-Bob
bobafifi.com

usedviolins.com

fluteplayer.net

I think the lack of God is

Dana J. Tuszke — Mon, 21 May 2007 11:41:17 -0500

I think the lack of God is the worst thing to happen to this country. Many people have no morals anymore.

Dana from The Dana Files.

Religion is the worst thing

MisterF — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:56:49 -0500

Religion and the thought of a god is the worst thing to happen to this world.

Religion hinders the forward progress of mankind.

Now, don't hate on

mothergoosemouse — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:48:09 -0500

Now, don't hate on astronomy... ;)

mothergoosemouse

Dana, I am genuinely curious

lauriewrites — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:41:57 -0500

Dana, I am genuinely curious as to how you feel it fosters productive debate or understanding - or the openness you say you've gained from Blogher - to label individuals and arguments in the ways that you do here? You say you feel like an outsider, but that's a position you can put yourself in with harsh language and judgment as well.

This is one of the most polarizing topics (possibly the most?) in the history of our society. It is emotionally charged but I would never expect someone who was staunchly pro-life to agree with me no matter how many times I shared my perspective. I would likewise venture to say that no pro-choice individual has ever been swayed by any variation on the phrase "kill babies."

And I might not agree with them (in this case, you) but I can be thankful I live somewhere where I'm free to express my opinion even when it's unpopular. I do understand the other views you present, although they are different than my own. However, when you pigeonhole ME, which you do when you make sweeping statements such as "Liberals...(insert generalization here)" I shut down and stop hearing you. I am a "liberal", among other things, but I can handle the word "death," as much as I still "respect life" according to my own beliefs.

It's up to all of us to determine our own contexts and we all live here together so we have to work those out or simply interact with people who believe exactly as we do. That doesn't work for me. Issues you see as black and white may be very gray to me, and vice versa. So I would be guilty of the same if I made any such comments about Conservatives or "right wingers" or any other pejorative terms I could come up with to reduce individuals to a single term.

I don't want to do that, even when I'm tempted. And as you seem an enthusiastic member of the Blogher team, I felt compelled to ask you the question in my first sentence. Hope you'll share.

Laurie

lauriewrites

Context

heivilinj — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:40:23 -0500

Presuming the issue is free of context and is a simple "life or death" issue strikes me as naive.

Right or wrong, fertility assistance exists. Perhaps we should ban that.

If fertility assistance exists and they have excess embryos, surely a consequence of practical techniques to ensure the success of the fertility treatment, then what should be done with them? Who do they belong to? The parents? The clinic? The doctors? Us? The government?

Should we pay to continue supporting them until they can be used to bring another life into the world? Perhaps. Can we afford that? Probably not. Who pays? The parents? The clinic? The government?

If we can't afford to continue support for them and we don't have donors who want them what do we do? Destroy them? Many people believe this is murder.

If they're going to be destroyed anyway, due to other reasons, which are perhaps beyond our control, should we not try to use their deaths to help other people? People living with despair and grief? People living with crippling diseases? Isn't trying to help people the Christian thing to do?

And what about the comparison between the rights of the unborn cells, the unborn child if you will, and the rights of those living with crippling diseases? Who has more right to life?

And who am I to make that decision?
Who is anyone?

Jim Heivilin

It's not a baby

Suzanne Reisman — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:16:33 -0500

One of the things I find most interesting about these debates is how fetal life is defined as a baby from the start. Yet, fetal development is scientifically divided into stages specifically because it is not yet a baby. It is convenient to define it that way, but children are not yet developmentally adults and we all agree to recognize that fact. Life changes and develops over time. Now, that has nothing to do with whether or not you think it is wrong to terminate the process of development before it reaches the official stage of what we all can agree is a baby, but it is ridiculous to insist that a zygote is the same capacity as a blastocyst as a baby as a fetus as an embryo.
It is a developmental process and it annoys me that people refuse to recognize that. (Again, you can believe that interrupting that process is murder, just like stopping a kid from becoming an adult is murder - and I'll disagree because I don't think a clump of cells has equal or more rights than a fully formed person - but it is a process.)

Suzanne, BlogHer Contributing Editor - Feminsim & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

I was not calling Mom-101 a

Dana J. Tuszke — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:55:49 -0500

I was not calling Mom-101 a baby killer. I meant it in the collective sense of those who support embryonic stem cell research because that's what this research does: It kills human babies. I can't stress that enough. It is ignornant to make excuses by claiming these are just cells.

I apologize for my remark, I can see how it was offensive.

This is a controversial subject, one that has caused much grief in politics and religion. Those of us who respect life, oppose abortion and ESCR have every right to defend to defend it.

Dana from The Dana Files.

thanks for the perspectives

cfelchlin — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:44:10 -0500

Thank you for the differing prespectives on highly charged ethical questions. I think the anwers depends on what your individual moral values are. Its very refreshing to read about differing view points.

For those parents with school aged kids, here's a useful site with online directory and sign up sheet templates for school activities, field trips and fundraising, schoolparent.net. The site is FREE to join and you just need to request an invitation to join.

Death. Nobody likes the

Terri987 — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:23:10 -0500

Death. Nobody likes the word. I have a secret though...nobody gets out alive.

It is natural to want to cure the ills of this world and end suffering, but it must not be at the cost of our principles and the value of human life.

Also, while there are many scientists that have altruistic desires to devleop cures, let's not kid ourselves--in the end, it's all about the money that stands to be made by bio-tech companies.

We have all kinds of miraculous drugs and treatments that many never get simply because they can't afford them. If that's the case now, why should we pursue something that has enormous ethical implications only to further the careers and fortunes of bio-tech companies?

It really is a question of

viciousrumours — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:18:11 -0500

It really is a question of where do you draw the line. Quite a few of you seem to think that "the law" will step in and stop it from getting out of hand, but where does "out of hand" start? Who gets to decide that? When does it become unacceptable? Whose life isn't worth saving? What measures aren't acceptable to take to save one more human life?

Each one of us has to make a choice. We make a choice when we decide whether we're okay with the idea that calling an aborted child a non-life is all right. This is an issue tied directly to abortion. The women who chose to have abortions do so well with in their rights and should not be belittled for doing so, however, extending that into medical research that has the potential to grow into something much more heinous is not something I am comfortable looking away from.

When a woman choses to excersise her right to reproductive freedom, that's one thing. I may not be comfortable with it, but I will respect her privacy. When someone steps into an entirely different moral arena I will step up and speak out. Playing God is not something we should ever get comfortable with, no matter who we think we're saving...and yes, I have given a lot of thought to the "What if it were my children?" end of this debate. I wouldn't want my child saved at the cost of the moral fiber of our society. I'm not comfortable taking that leap. Not now, not ever.

and this is where all debate becomes impossible

gingajoy — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:16:19 -0500

"As long as you're allowed to kill babies, who cares, right?"

Apart from all the leaps from cells to fetuses to babies that are made here, which I do believe are morally and ethically debatable issues (and have been for centuries) it is this particular leap--from prochoicer to wanton babykiller--where I get completely turned off by this discussion. When one individual, who as far as I can see voices dissent in calm and respectful terms, is basically accused of being a "baby killer" then there is no point in pursuing the topic. At least not in this space.

Come on. How is it possible to have a discussion, even a heated one, when the terms disintegrate like this?

Bush Promises to Veto Senate Stem Cell Bill

Dana J. Tuszke — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:07:02 -0500

A nation that elects to kill it's unborn, is not a nation at all.

I've heard these words spoken at many of the Right to Life walks and rallies I've participated in. Each year, 1.3 million abortions are performed in the United States.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute reported in 2001, that 57% percent of these are performed at a gestational age of less than nine weeks, 20% at 9-10 weeks and 10% at 11-12 weeks.

At twelve weeks in my pregnancy, I had an ultrasound completed in which I saw the tiny heartbeat of my baby, rapidly beating inside of my belly. It was fascinating.

Although the life growing inside of me looked nothing like the baby I delivered twenty-six weeks later, I knew the tiny embryo developed into a fetus and was a human life from the moment of conception.

Unfortunately, Congress doesn't feel the same way about America's unborn.

A Senate bill that was created to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research was passed 63-34 on Wednesday, however President Bush vowed to veto the Senate stem cell bill.

"This bill crosses a moral line that I and many others find troubling," he said. "If it advances all the way through Congress to my desk, I will veto it."

The Senate bill is similar to the one the President disapproved last year in which he used the only veto of his presidency thus far.

The bill was intended to release the restrictions that have been placed upon stem cell research, but it has fallen short of the veto-proof margin that is needed to enact the law over the President's objections.

Sentors Tom Harkin of Iowa and Claire McCaskill called for the unleashing of America's sicentists as it's "not everday we have the opportunity to heal the sick."

President Bush and many conservatives believe the research destroys human life with the destruction of human embryos.

Many are in favor of adult stem cell research, as I've written about before, but scientists claim adult cells are not as promising as embryonic stem cells.

The more I think about it, the embryos aren't promising either.

They'll never be born to become teachers, lawyers, doctors, scientists, postal workers, stay-at-home parents, bloggers, journalists, senators or even President, when they're being destroyed every day.

Contributing Editor Dana J. Tuszke also blogs at The Dana Files.