Althouse: Bush's first veto.

July 19, 2006

Bush's first veto.

As expected, President Bush has vetoed the attempt at loosening up restrictions on stem cell research. Too bad.

35 comments:

jeff said...: If you want to do the research - do the reasearch.

But please don't do it with my tax dollars.; 7/19/06, 2:25 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 7/19/06, 2:36 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: I have a compromise proposal. Proponents of Stem Cell research say that the excess frozen embryos are going to waste so why not use them in research. Are they really going to waste? I think opponents of the research are troubled by this assertion.

It seems that there would be plenty of couples willing to "adopt" the embryo for implantation. Therefore, a law should be passed that gives the parents of the embryo a choice to 1) offer the embryo up for adoption or 2) to destroy the embryo. If they elect to destroy the embryo, it cannot be used for research.

However, if they elect to put the embryo up for adoption and after a reasonable time the embryo is not adopted, then it can be destroyed and used for research.

This compromise softens the ethical dilemma because it takes the choice of donating the embryo to research away from the parents and to the winds of chance. Furthermore, this law would reduce the slippery slope of people producing embryos purely for the purpose of medical research.

What do you think?; 7/19/06, 2:51 PM
Hunter McDaniel said...: Sorta makes me want to start singing "Every Sperm is Sacred".

I'm pretty conservative on most social issues, but this just seems like a huge waste of political capital. It won't even have any practical effect on the amount of stem-cell research that goes on; if it did I might be a lot more bothered about it. Just another act in the Kabuki game of politics these days.; 7/19/06, 3:00 PM
Jacob said...: Yes Sloanasaurus, they are really going to waste. Or I guess more accurately, they are going to a medical waste facility to be destroyed.

Also children have parents, not blastocysts. If we're going to be starting a giant adoption program what about for the millions of kids in foster care? Or the millions of fetuses that would otherwise be aborted. I think a clump of a hundred cells is definetly low on the list of priorities, especially if it could be utilized to, say, save some of those children mentioned above.; 7/19/06, 3:01 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: yes, Mob, but you can sway more people to your side by resolving this particular ethical dilemma.

jacob's comment: "I think a clump of a hundred cells is definetly low on the list of priorities.." clearly shows that he knows nothing about the struggle of thousands of couples in trying to have or adopt children. Adopting and implanting embryos would be fairly inexpensive and would have a decent success rate. The reason why it is probably not that common has more to do with the parents of the embryo than the desire to adopt them.; 7/19/06, 3:15 PM
Jacob said...: If I was the kind of person who threw around the phrase "clearly shows that he knows nothing" about a topic I might point out that sloanasaurus apperently didn't know that excess frozen embryos went to waste. But I'm not so I won't.

It's true that there are lots of people who want children. It would make more sense, from a utilitarian point of view at least, to provide them with some of the surplus children that already exist. Streamlining adoption law should then be the priority. Better to use surplus blastocytes for science, then to implant them in people who should be adopting (or having their own IVF procedures done). But of course if someone wants to implant someone else's embryo in them more power to them. Just don't make it a law.

I might also be misunderstanding your argument, do you really mean that there should only be those 2 choices (as I've been interpreting it) or that there should be a third choice, 3) use the embryo for privately funded research?; 7/19/06, 4:14 PM
P_J said...: Theodore - that's some interesting logic there: Because pro-lifers haven't done everything they could do, therefore they are hypocrites and their argument is nullified.

I suppose abolitionists in the 19th century were hypocrites because they didn't join John Brown or protest outside plantations? Self-righteousness is always easy but seldom pretty.

And just for clarification, there are a number of Christians who have expressed concerns over hyper-ovulation and frozen embryos. And there are a number of Christians who are pro-life but aren't sure where they stand on what to do with embryonic life.

Of course, you've helpfully pointed out that what ESCR is doing is taking the same human life created through IVF and destroying it for medical research. So at least we're agreed that what's being destroyed is human beings. We just disagree on the morality of destroying humans on the off chance that helpful therapies might result.

"Wingnut" was a nice touch, though. Kudos.; 7/19/06, 4:17 PM
Troy said...: Two wrongs don't make a right Theodore. Just because the horse is out of the barn doesn't make it right to kill the horse. That's Ethics 101. If you want to do the research then do the research with your own money. If you cure Sickle Cell Anemia then you get the Nobel, and even better, the patent.

It's almost cliche, it's true (an inconvenient truth it seems)that the better science and potential is behind adult and umbilical cord, but no life (whatever klind of life) has to be snuffed for that.

A goodly portion of the country does not support (and a goodly portion does) embryonic stem cell research and the ethics are questionable. I reiterate, if stem cell supporters don't have any ethical qualms, then they can put up their own money and get off the government tit. Where's Bill Gates? -- he's flush with $60B in his foundation. Maybe instead of giving (wasting?) all that money on Harvard he can fund this magic bullet. Where's George Soros and Jeff Bezos, etc. Ted Turner? Oprah Winfrey for that matter or Brangelina?; 7/19/06, 4:21 PM
P_J said...: Jacob,

Streamlining adoption laws would not help much, as there are many more people who want to adopt than there are children available -- one of the unintended consequences of unlimited abortion created by Roe. 40 million is a lot of kids not alive to be adopted. That's why many couples, in spite of the costs, are going overseas to adopt.; 7/19/06, 4:23 PM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: Theodore Donald K.: I am one of those people who is a practicing Catholic who believes what the Church teaches about the sanctity of life from conception to natural death.

Holding this view meant, on a personal basis, that I don't use artificial means of contraception, or IVF or even artificial insemination. When my husband and I struggled with infertility, there were clear limits to what we could and couldn't do. We never crossed the line. I believe that IVF is morally wrong and, therefore, wouldn't do it.

But the more pressing battle is at the abortion clinics, where people are ending a life, rather than at the IVF clinic, where people are trying to procure a life.

Limited resources, not hypocrisy, require picking the battles.; 7/19/06, 4:27 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: To the wingnuts whining about taxes: there can be no serious doubt that those of us who support government funding of stem cell research are on the whole better educated, more affluent, and therefore pay more taxes, than you who oppose it. So, tax receipts being fungible, you are free to imagine that all of your taxes are actually being used for whatever God-approved purpose you like...say, paying farmers not to grow stuff.; 7/19/06, 4:40 PM
JohnF said...: I thought the legislation was only about whether the feds (as opposed to states and private concerns) should fund this research , and was not, to use Ann's word, about "restrictions" on the research. Can anyone clarify this?; 7/19/06, 4:44 PM
Laura Reynolds said...: The vote was to let 63 senators claim they support federal funding for ESCR and therefore curing little Johnny from some horrible disease. But they knew Bush would veto it and they knew they could not override it, so its politics and nothing more.

Nothing's stopping it from happening.; 7/19/06, 4:44 PM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: Smilin' Jack: The Hyde Amendment is still in effect.

Thank God.; 7/19/06, 4:45 PM
P_J said...: Smilin' Jack - Classy. Anyway, if you're better off than the wingnuts, aren't you paying less tax because of Bu$Hitler's tax breaks for the wealthy?

John F - the bill was about federal funding of ESCR. There are no federal restrictions on the research itself.

The political 'kabuki' going on here is the claim that Bush is "restricting" ESCR. In fact, when Bush created his compromise stem cell policy in 2001, he liberalized stem cell research by allowing federal funding (the first ever) for research on then-existing stem cell lines.

Supporters of ESCR funding are asking for a further expansion of federal grants, not a reversal of a 'ban.'; 7/19/06, 5:07 PM
Ann Althouse said...: JohnF: Restrictions on the use of federal funds.; 7/19/06, 5:09 PM
P_J said...: Ann,

How is refusing to pay for something you don't want and aren't obligated to have a "restriction"?

Do I get to claim that the government is restricting me from owning a mansion? Did the feds restrict Alaska from building the Bridge to Nowhere?; 7/19/06, 5:26 PM
P_J said...: Cat,

You're not being honest about the research. John Edwards told us:

"We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases. ... People like Chris Reeve will get out of their wheelchairs and walk again with stem cell research."

Why can't those pie-in-the-sky Christian wingnuts stay out of the political process and let us sober, unbiased people make the policies for them?; 7/19/06, 6:00 PM
P_J said...: "Research facilities -- particularly medical centers connected with Universities and Biology departments -- rely a lot on government grants."

... And bad artists rely heavily on NEA grants. That doesn't answer the question of whether the research (or the art) should be done.

Again: We're not cutting funding, we're not banning the research; we're refusing to expand it. It's a little dishonest to call that a 'restriction.'

Has the government restricted children's television because they haven't increased funding for it?; 7/19/06, 6:13 PM
XWL said...: There's one huge disconnect in the argument regarding this issue that I don't think ever gets addressed.

If embryonic stemcells are as potentially medically useful as folks claim, why would public funds be needed at all?

I don't see big pharma shying away from spending their own money on promising research.

Given the tremendous number of ills that proponents of this research claim would be faerie-wanded away with just the right dose of embryonic stem cells, I can't help but wonder why Pfizer hasn't started an embryo assembly line using Chinese or Indian sperm and eggs to create these little miracle cures in a petri dish.

(and for all we know, the Chinese government might be up to such a thing, already)

I think the federal government over steps its boundaries and overfunds far too many projects, even if I disagree with why money is not being spent, I'm always gladdened when the federal government refuses to get involved in something.; 7/19/06, 6:35 PM
dcwilly said...: I have every expectation that all of you supporting the ban on funding this research will decline the likely treatments and therapies it will lead to. When a loved one becomes seriously ill with a horrific disease that today cannot be cured, but quite possibly will be through the use of stem cells, I am sure you will let them continue to suffer because of your moral concerns.; 7/19/06, 7:40 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Pastor Jeff: It's a restriction on how funding can be used. I didn't mean to disguise the fact that you can do research with money other than federal money. But the feds do tax us quite a bit, and then they dole the money back out as they decide. The restrictions they impose matter a lot.; 7/19/06, 7:54 PM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: Johnny Nucleo:
Thanks. The "consistency" for which I strive is less rare than you think. In my circle, it's quite common.

I disagree with you that "ultimately no one knows" what is right and wrong. How, then, did you arrive at your moral opposition to IVF? It's more than just mere belief, isn't it?

My disagreement with IVF isn't that it creates life [a good], but that it creates life by separating the procreative element from the unitive element of the marital act. The exact reason is used to oppose artificial contraception. In one, the couple unites without being open to procreation; in the other, the couple procreates without uniting. Both wrong.

I fervently agree with you that killing embryos is serious business.

Many years ago, I stopped trying to be my own magesterium. Life's been great ever since.; 7/19/06, 11:06 PM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: Hey, Johnny:
Come on in! The water's fine!
[Just in case no one ever invited you to join.]

Is a semi-detached voice like a duplex?; 7/19/06, 11:46 PM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: Geoduck2:
Don't know if that was asked of me, but Catholic teaching is to oppose all forms of contraception and abortifacients.

I, personally, can see condoms and diaphraghms as "less worse" than other methods because they attempt to prevent sperm from meeting egg. IUDs and some forms of the pill, however, don't prevent a conception, they prevent an implantation of a fertilized egg. Too late in my book.

The "method" approved by the Vatican is for married couples. It is Natural Family Planning [2 different types: sympto-thermal and Billings method] wherein the couple observes fertile signs and abstains from the marital act to avoid or delay or space a pregnancy, and engages in the marital act to obtain a pregnancy.

Pharmaceutical companies don't much care for that method.; 7/20/06, 7:04 AM
bearing said...: geoduck sez,

Are you all against the use of IUDs for contraception?

I am. And, like Ruth Anne, am against IVF and ESCR as well, and for the same reasons she mentioned.

As for declining the gains of such research should any materialize: there is a great deal of moral philosophy that can be perused on the subject of "proximate" vs. "remote" cooperation with evil and the like. Dilemmas like that are best resolved on a case-by-case basis, involving questions such as whether accepting the benefit will lead to additional evil being done, whether accepting it leads to an ends-justify-the-means attitude, etc. But I'll tell you that I've so far felt unable to justify injecting my kids with any of the fetal-cell-line vaccines. It just... bothers me. (I acknowledge that reasonable people weighing the same moral question can and do come to a different conclusion, and I don't insist that I'm certainly correct to decline the vaccines.)

Ruth Anne's right: This (consistency with regard to the moral status of embryos) is not such a rare position to take. I dare say it would be even more common if the public discourse tended to be more accurate. Not everyone is even aware that IVF involves destruction of embryos, or of how an IUD works.

We, too, have friends who have used IVF to conceive their child(ren). The kids are wonderful and, of course, blameless. But I can't help being privately horrified that their parents were willing to, er, waste the kids' siblings in the process of obtaining them.; 7/20/06, 7:07 AM
bearing said...: me,

What on earth do you mean by "morally significant event?" I'm not trying to be obtuse, just to understand your question precisely in order to answer it. Do you mean "an action that is morally wrong?"; 7/20/06, 9:10 AM
amba said...: me,

I'm repeating myself but I wrote a post on this called People Seeds. It's basically an argument that actual life, as distinct from potential life, begins at implantation. If so, then the moral argument about doing something to prevent implantation becomes, "Who decides?" Is everything that isn't from human will, from God?

That said -- I admire the moral consistency of people who won't use IVF because they hold the natural process of conception and the human embryo sacred.; 7/20/06, 12:48 PM
bearing said...: me,

thanks --- I'm so glad you clarified because (obviously) I thought you meant something entirely different.

Very early embryo loss (not due to contraception techniques or abortion) (a) isn't willed or caused by anyone AND (b) doesn't usually even make itself known. So, no, I suppose not. (You will find some people who argue that it is immoral to have sex when the woman suffers from a luteal phase defect or some such condition that carries a high risk of natural embryo loss. I do not agree, but I certainly respect anyone who chooses to abstain in that circumstance.)

But many women who experience miscarriage after they become aware of a pregnancy do, in fact, mourn and memorialize such losses.

I'm not sure what that has to do with IVF/ESCR destruction of embryos. Morally speaking the losses in that situation are quite different, because that destruction is willed; it is performed as an overt act; and it is known to have occurred.; 7/20/06, 1:25 PM
Laura Reynolds said...: I am personally conflicted on the issue but have given it plenty of thought. I have MS and stem cell research holds some potential for a cure although I'm not delusional about ESCR being the quickest and only path.

But I respect the view that conception is the beginning of life. I have come to my own compromise and I don't feel the need to impose it on others or use it to judge others.

Since there are embryos that will not be implanted and are destined for eventual "destruction" I am ok with their use for research. I am ok with the government restricting funding to existing lines (current policy). I am not ok ever with creating embryos for research.; 7/20/06, 5:16 PM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: Geoduck 2: I never equated IUD-using with "murder." I consider it a grave sin, a moral wrong, but I cannot in a blanket statement call it murder. Murder requires a specific knowledge, intent, means, motive, etc. It's lacking here from what I've seen in most cases.; 7/20/06, 6:38 PM
bearing said...: Murder requires a specific knowledge, intent, means, motive, etc.

Right, which is why implanting 3 embryos into a woman's uterus, even expecting that only one or two will survive, isn't murderous. Nor is the creation of the embryos.

In fact, once the embryos have been created, the only moral thing to do with them is to implant them in a human womb, in an effort to allow them to survive. It is, I believe, immoral to create embryos via IVF. It is certainly immoral to destroy them. It's not immoral to implant them.

So, I would say to "me" that the loss of embryos that have been implanted in a woman's uterus is not dissimilar to the incidental loss of embryos in the normal course of uncontracepted human sexuality.

But the act of deliberately destroying them is murder.

me: But they were giving one out of three a good chance of actually developing into a person, while if they only implanted one embryo its chances would be much worse.

What you mean is that by implanting 3 embryos, the likelihood of a pregnancy being sustained is increased (because there are 3 possible embryos and not just one that can implant). To the individual embryo, the likelihood of survival to birth is probably not greater if it is implanted along with others.; 7/20/06, 8:21 PM
bearing said...: johnny nucleo: That's very sweet. I gotta tell you, though, the confession bit freaks me out. It would take days, months, years.

Nah, couple of hours, by appointment, max. Feels good, too --- lots better than a therapy session. :-)

geoduck, I sympathize with the "baffling" thing. It took me a long time to come to where I am on this issue, but now that I'm here, logic forces consistency.; 7/21/06, 9:21 AM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: Geoduck2: As I said, I consider the use of an IUD a sin. I am fully aware that I am obligated to moral standards by virtue of my membership in the Roman Catholic Church. I joined it and I try to live by its rules.

You were once the size of the period at the end of this sentence. And you're human. It seems you have a problem with where the line is drawn. Tell me, then, where do you draw the line? When weren't you human and when did you become human? That answer, wherever the line is drawn, has consequences.

Johnny Nucleo: Every priest I know has instructed to list your sins briefly and in summary form. 10 commandments takes only a few minutes to recount in summary form. They really have heard it all.; 7/21/06, 9:22 AM