Is Nancy Reagan advocating murder?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jul 23 2006, 10:12 AM) [snapback]290993[/snapback]</div>

In the Republican Party, there is a wider range of allowed beliefs about the beginning of life than in the Democratic Party. There are many Republicans in support of medical experimentation on frozen embryos who still maintain their pro-life stance for embryos that can have an expectation of living to term (I'm in that camp). There are even many pro-choice Republicans, such as Christy Todd Whitman, former Governor of NJ and head of the EPA under this President, Rudy Giuliani, considered a front runner for the nomination for President in 2008, and Sec. of State Condi Rice, often considered a VP or Presidential possibility. Other Republicans remain solidly pro-life, but still would not vote for a constitutional amendment banning abortion (Senator John McCain, another front runner for President in 2008) or would allow abortion in the first trimester only. Governor and later head of the Department of Homeland Security Tommy Thompson, also considered a possible Presidential contender in 2008, attended the 2004 "Republicans for Choice" rally at the 2004 Republican National Convention that saw some 600 delegates, evenly divided between men and women.

The Democratic Party seems to enforce a more ridgid litmus test on its members, virtually silencing any debate over the issue. Where are the pro-life Democrats? When you sign up to be a Democrat, do you have to swear an oath of fealty to one position in this debate, shutting off your mind and closing it to any new information? It seems so.

The debate should be about whether or not using embryos for medical research constitutes murder, or if the use of dead human tissue constitutes an ethical problem in and of itself. We have strict standards against murder, or even the taking of human life inadvertently. But I don't see anyone even questioning it on the Democratic side. Its only about "allow" or "not allow", and not any of the reasons why it is ethical. I have an answer for this view, do you?

We have strict standards against ingesting human flesh, and some see the use of embyonic cells injected into another person's body as a type of cannibalism. This is an ethical issue not treated by the pro-use crowd, so the anti-use folks holding this view are never challenged in this view. Would that be a more useful use of our time than trying to enforce philosophical consistency among all Republicans? I have an answer for this view, do you?

Anytime someone more powerful (medical researcher) wants to do something with something less powerful (a child, embryo, fetus, "brain dead" person, etc.), we should have this discussion. It is not enough that it "might be helpful" or that it may "save future lives". It must also be ethical. And while helpfulness and practicality may be part of why something is ethical, they are rarely the only components of an ethical framework.

Too bad the Democrats don't have this discussion.

The ardent pro-life supporters, like President Bush and Tony Snow, often use the word "murder" incorrectly; "murder" is a legal term. The daily destruction of some of the 400,000 plus embryos each day by labs is not "murder" in the legal sense, as embryos are property and not humans under the law. The fact that they would like to change that doesn't make the change automatically happen, and they shouldn't use the word "murder" to refer to an embryo.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul 23 2006, 02:07 PM) [snapback]291091[/snapback]</div>

I think that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Pennsylvania State Treasurer and Senate candidate Bob Casey, Jr., Representative Bart Stupak (D - Mich.) and 35 House Democrats who consistently vote with him on abortion related issues will disagree with that generalization.

Wikipedia® - Democrats for Life

Catholic News Service

Crisis Magazine

 

Apparently, there are at least 290 Representatives and 67 Senators that just can't agree with the quoted 70+% of the American polled public...

BTW: How many Americans does that oft quoted poll showing 70% of Americans agree with expanding the public spending for stem-cell research, anyway?

19000, 190000?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul 23 2006, 05:07 PM) [snapback]291091[/snapback]</div>

I think it's sad that you think that Democrats DON'T have this discussion, or that we don't ponder the ethical ramifications of these actions. There are a wide range of feelings about abortion within the Democratic party, just as you describe within the Republican party - as people have mentioned above, some aren't even ranging within the grey areas. Democrats range from pro-life folks who would support an constitutional amendment to the people who you seem to classify as the typical democrat, who would like to see there be no restrictions on abortions. In reality, I think there are very few Democrats like that - most of us believe that a fetus does become a human life that warrants protection at some point during pregnancy.

That point is something I'm sure lots of Democrats have pondered, as I have. I tend to leave questions like that up to doctors - it especially bothers me when politicians make a point of writing a law absent a condition allowing doctors to make a judgement call if needed. I don't know much about anatomy, pregnancy, or medicine, so I stay out of the abortion debate for the most part. I'm inclined to think that the fetus develops into a person somewhere around 20 weeks - just the early side of viability. That's about when (studies appear to show) that fetuses have the anatomical ability for brain function, to feel pain... I'm sure there are Democrats more conservative than me, and Democrats more liberal. I'm in favor of banning 'late-term' abortions - with proper medical exemptions - as a concession point because someone has to step forward with something reasonable.

Now for the kicker: I might well support an earlier abortion cutoff date if it came with the exemptions, as well as real promotion of pregnancy prevention as well as adoption programs. Studies show that combined abstinence and contraceptive education do a better job than either alone. Shouldn't the ultimate goal for either side be to reduce abortions?


As to how this relates to embryo research, it is clear by current medical standards that embryos obtained from fertility clinics meet none of the criteria for human life - not even close. This notwithstanding the fact that there is such an excess of those embryos that it's just not a realistic hope that not one would ever be discarded - and I think that when that embryo meets certain criteria (I am content with the criteria set out in HR810) it should be used for potentially life saving purposes, rather than discarded. I don't feel that the government has any business delaying the process because of largely uninformed gut reactions or political ties.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jul 23 2006, 02:43 PM) [snapback]291101[/snapback]</div>

I'm mostly unconvinced, but there appears to be some softening. From the Wikidpedia article you linked:

Doesn't sound like a lively and active debate to me. Now, if we are saying that there is a movement since the last election, I guess we'll have to see how well they are welcomed by the 2008 convention. I suspect the far left will continue to silence them, and not permit them to enter into the debate.

As for the individuals, I had thought Reid was pro-choice, and found the source of my confusion at Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid:

Reid co-sponsored one of the most restrictive laws ever passed on free speech in order to support his pro-choice stance, yet Reid appears now to be moving toward the center. Either that, or NARAL and NFP and RHA have hardended theirs (I suspect that's the case, as many pro-choicers did not soften their stance even in the face of the partial birth abortion controversy). If it is him moving toward a more moderate position, it would be interesting to hear why.

Ben Nelson is pro-life. Does he have national aspirations? He might be an attractive candidate for the moderate folks in the country, but I doubt he would make it through the Democratic primary process.

I'm sure there are others too. But they don't enjoy the same access to power the Republicans give their philosophical dissenters on issues like Affirmative Action and abortion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Jul 23 2006, 05:40 PM) [snapback]291173[/snapback]</div>

And, in the light that the Congress cannot agree on overriding a veto, this whole subject devolves to politcal fodder.

I don't feel that the government has any business spending my tax dollars because of a few public polls of a comparatively few people. If we really wanted to know, we would have a national referendum on the 2006 ballot. But I suspect that it would fail, and we could all listen while some badgered the electorate as ignorant or politically driven.

Research IS still ongoing, and will continue whether there is taxpayer money spent or not. If YOU wish to donate your money to the research, write a check.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jul 23 2006, 09:08 PM) [snapback]291188[/snapback]</div>

I would lie back and take it a lot easier if the rules didn't prohibit the technology from taking up the same lab space or using the same machinery as federally funded projects. It's less that they aren't funding it that bothers me - it's more that the rules actively work to make the process harder and more expensive for labs to conduct this research.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Jul 23 2006, 07:40 PM) [snapback]291173[/snapback]</div>

This is why society gets all screwed up.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Jul 23 2006, 08:40 PM) [snapback]291173[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 23 2006, 10:14 PM) [snapback]291214[/snapback]</div>

Wow, way to take a quote out of context. I'm sure you're proud of the point you just made, eh?

 

Hey, look! I've invented this clever saying thing: "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a democrat."

Actually, it seems to me that it's Repubs who are marching in lockstep. No matter how "W" tramples the constitution and the bill of rights, the Repubs refuse to do the oversight job they are paid to do.

There are billions of dollars missing in Iraq, but no one wants to find out what's happened with them.

I wonder if voters might have something to say about that some time.

I very sincerely hope they can't rig all the elections everywhere, but maybe they can and the country will be even more broke, both morally and financially, than it is now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Jul 23 2006, 05:40 PM) [snapback]291173[/snapback]</div>

Well, I'm not correct if I said rank and file Democrats don't have the discussion. Because you're right; most Americans, including most rank and file Democrats, struggle a bit with the issue and have positions that are not at the extremes the two parties have taken.

But I meant the party itself, and its hostile nature toward its candidates that aren't in lockstep with the pro-choice agenda as expressed by NOW, NARAL and the other activist groups. While Colin Powell can get up and give a keynote address at a Republican convention, noting that even though he doesn't agree with the official party platform on abortion and Affirmative Action he is welcomed to give his comments, no such speech is allowed in the Democrat Convention.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Jul 23 2006, 05:40 PM) [snapback]291173[/snapback]</div>

I don't agree, but that's a reasoned approach to the problem. You didn't call people with a different view "murderers" as the right does, and you didn't say your opposition wants to make all women "brood mares" like the left does.

For the pro-life person, at the point the fetus is "human" or a "person", it deserves protection. There are all sorts of extenuating circumstances, including mental health of the mother, that get very tough to work through. But seeing how the fetus doesn't have a say in the matter, and is just incubating waiting for someone to make a decision if he should live or die ... such as that mentally ill mother ... then perhaps its worth having the discussion about what is allowed.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Jul 23 2006, 05:40 PM) [snapback]291173[/snapback]</div>

I think Roe v. Wade would allow some restrictions, especially in the third trimester. I'm extremely uncomfortable with any abortion after brain function starts, which is very early in the pregnancy (8 weeks gestation, IIRC, which is only about 6 weeks after the woman's last period). So a late term prohibition would be a move I support, but I would want to roll that date back to very early in the pregnancy.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Jul 23 2006, 05:40 PM) [snapback]291173[/snapback]</div>

I think an ethical argument can be made from a pro-life position that supports your view. That interests me much more than an argument that drags in the debate from the abortion issue. That's the discussion I hope to have with other conservatives, and I guarantee you I won't start by asking if Nancy Reagan is advocating murder.

The ethical question should be framed this way: Since the parents of frozen embryos determine the fate of the embryos, with the only current option to have them destroyed, should the parents also have the right to donate their embryo's body to medical research, just as you do for a child that dies in a traffic accident?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul 24 2006, 01:04 AM) [snapback]291306[/snapback]</div>

My discomfort with abortion begins with the development of brain function as well - but I think the 6-8 week mark you refer to actually coincides with when electrical activity begins within fetal brain cells - which might be called brain activity but certainly not brain function. In fact, if you do the research on that 40day/6 week number, you'll see that it's one of those pieces of misinformation that ends up being taken as fact. The citation isn't from any research papers but a speech at a convention. Search out Hannibal Hamlin's 1964 speech about how important EEGs could be, and you'll find a paragraph regarding EEGs on fetuses. Even the technical details of the study that section refers to (Folia Psychiat Neurol Jap 1951;5:135-146 if you are interested) are quoted incorrectly in the speech - the fetuses from that study were aborted at 90 days or later. It's often cited by pro-lifers (even on the nrlc website) but the inaccuracies and the terminology switch are important - and I think it's telling that it's still being used as evidence.

A fetus doesn't develop all the necessary components of brain function and begin establishing synaptic connections (erratic and occasional to begin with, but brain waves nonetheless) until about 20 weeks - at least that's what research appears to show. (http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/ has the text of an article often cited by pro-lifers regarding a fetus' ability to feel pain, and pro-choicers regarding brain function, and doctors hail it as an influential study that showed we need to be using anesthesia on our premies and newborns.) If research started indicating (and continued indicating - one study does not a conclusion make) indicating that actual brain function begins before 20 weeks, I would likely change my personal stance. I figure that a medical consensus on 'brain death' was worked out for organ donation by people much smarter than I, and (whether daron believes me or not) I do make the honest attempt to be rational and not hypocritical. There obviously comes a point when even the 'brood mare' (a term I apologize for - on behalf of every person who has used it against someone trying to protect an infant's life) does not have the right to terminate her pregnancy.


Once again, as for embryo research, I agree - your question takes it down to the lowest denominator. Even in an idea conservative world like Daron (sorry I keep picking on you, Daron - guess that misquote irked me more than I realized) describes in the other thread on embryonic research, he admits that they will never be able to force a parent to give their excess embryos up for adoption. Eventually, whether in a fantasy world or the real world, we come up against one of two choices: discardation (I think I made that one up myself) or donation.

Really, as I said a couple of posts ago, it's less an issue that the federal government won't accept applications for funding this - I think they should, but that's not my call to make, and it wouldn't hinder the research, just not advance or promote it. Private sources can and do take up the funding, so limiting embryonic research from receiving grants is more an inconvenience. As it stands now, though, embryonic research cannot share resources with federally funded projects. A school can choose to build a lab and purchase new equipment, or they can give up their federal funding, or they can choose to concentrate their efforts on non-embryonic research. Those rules result in duplication of efforts, equipment, and space. That's what irks me most, far more than denying grants. Medical research is expensive, time consuming, and difficult - the rules that Bush put in place in 2001 actively hinder progress and waste the time and resources of the groups conducting valuable medical research in the US.


EDITED for my terrible spelling. Odd that the spell check didn't know 'pregnancy.'

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Jul 24 2006, 06:54 AM) [snapback]291380[/snapback]</div>

What rules did "Bush put in place in 2001"?

How did he do this without Congress (aka: pursestring people) knowledge?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul 24 2006, 01:04 AM) [snapback]291306[/snapback]</div>

this is almost exactly how i've seen the whole issue all along.

even if i throw the conservatives a bone and call a frozen embryo a 'person'... that person is still subject to law. as this person is under the age of 18, the parents are its guardians. parents have the right to authorize organ donation in the tragic case of an accident or other cause of death for say, a newborn or a 10 year old or a 16 year old. i believe if you're going to call these embryos people, then the parents should have guardianship over these people and decide when the potential for life no longer exists whether they are to be donated to improving the lives of others or just cast away.

right now the right maintains a double standard. the embryos are people but the parents have no parental rights. and that alone seems wrong to me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jul 24 2006, 10:08 AM) [snapback]291383[/snapback]</div>

I could be misinformed - correct me when I'm wrong. I hope you know by now that I prefer to make my decisions based on facts, and I am very open to changing my mind when the facts lead me in another direction. <edited out something slightly combative and unnecessary>

Research that destroyed embryos has never been funded - this has been in place since long before Bush. As early as 1995, NIH recommended opening funding to research on embryos, even those specifically created for research. The administration declined to fund research where embryos were created, but planned to allow funding for research on surplus embryos from fertilization treatments. Congress responded with the Dewey Amendment, which prohibited federal funding for projects in which embryos were destroyed.

After embryonic stem cell discoveries, the Clinton administration decided to revisit the guidelines. Given the new data, they decided that funding should be available to research that uses stem cells from the surplus embryos, but not embryos created specifically for research. They worked this through the obvious loophole in the Dewey amendment - that federal funds could be used for research on the already-cultivated stem cells. I think that was probably the point of the phrasing of the amendment, but that's just my opinion. Anyway, NIH released their proposed legislation allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research in projects where the stem cells have been cultivated by privately funded sources. The Bush administration delayed its enactment pending review.

They made some key changes before passing - while Bush approved funding of research using stem cell lines created before August 9th, 2001 (using the Dewey loophole,) he added the distinction that research could *not* be funded if the stem cell lines were created after that date. As I understand it, he needed no approval from Congress to make those changes, he made them and NIH enacted the rules with the changes, just like when Clinton and co. declined to fund the destruction of embryos. It's his prerogative, I suppose, I just think he's wrong. In specifically disallowing funding of new embryonic stem cell lines, researchers were forced to make tough decisions, and waste resources. If this was not his or the administrations intent, it would be lovely to see some clarification on the matter - I'd welcome proof that I'm wrong on this, or if a statement were issued specifically allowing shared resources but not direct funding.

 

If abortion is deemed no longer legal, I would like to hear about the measures that will be implemented to ensure that these "unwanted" baby's lives are managed properly and that they end up with families that will care for them (emotionally and monetarily) and that they don't spend a significant portion of their lives in the system. What, too, about back room abortions that will surely arise? These venues will most certainly be risky endeavors, containing unsanitary environments that subject the patient to infections (and possibly death). Then there is the matter of the present over population status and the fact that our planet is already supporting too large a population. What about those that wind up pregnant from sexual assault? Are they to carry a baby to term and then raise this baby despite having not planned for a baby and possibly without the means to raise a baby merely because of another individual's religious bias? The list goes on..........We have to consider these, and many other circumstances, or we will be proceeding with reckless abandon.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jul 24 2006, 11:35 AM) [snapback]291442[/snapback]</div>

Any consideration toward not engaging in the immorality that is creating the problem in the first place?

I didn't think so.... Just wanted to ask...