Bush is losing what had seemed to be an unshakable grip on the legislature.
His Social Security reforms seem to have stalled, and now news that the House has approved a bill that would loosen restrictions on stem cell research.
Today he pulled a bit of a stunt by having children born from stored embryos all brought together while he read a speech. They wore T-Shirts like 'Former embryo.' Bush expects it to play well with certain core groups, but it's obviously a stunt. A really annoying stunt. Bush can add it to his scrap-book "Flight Suit Moments."From the Post:
"The children here today remind us that there is no such thing as a spare embryo," Mr. Bush said, amid the squeals and coos of babies cradled in their mothers' arms. "Every embryo is unique and genetically complete, like every other human being. And each of us started out our life this way. These lives are not raw material to be exploited, but gifts."
Undifferentiated cells are undifferentiated cells. Really, these are about as simple as organic cells get in humans. Bush could really make the argument that we need to protect umbilical stem cells because they are more differentiated, and thus more human.
But all of this is drivel, really. Bush is trying to apply articles of personal faith and morality to a scientific issue. That's all fine and dandy on a personal level, but as national policy it's not so hot.
Bush says that umbilical stem cells work just as well. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. The issue of the relative effectiveness of embryonic and non-embryonic stem cells is one to be resolved by scientists, not by the federal government. Frist's video-tape diagnosis of Schiavo is about as scientific as things get around there.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Thad Anderson
BusinessWeek had an article recently about Bush's "ailing second term"
It's going to be interesting to see what happens during this term. I think the right's attempts to marginalize any Republican who tries to work across the aisle could really backfire.
2 - Scott Mora
"Undifferentiated cells are undifferentiated cells..." Undisturbed, these undifferentiated cells can only, and will only, grow into a human being. Umbilical stem cells would never become a human being.
When it will become a human being and your intervention/actions cause the human being to not be, you have stopped a human from being any further. On this planet, that is called "killing."
3 - Little Bow peep
Bush is using the Jingosheeple again just like he did with the schi** case, the neo-cons, chickenhawks and religious buddies of the Bush clan dont walk the walk, The masses that gave him his "man-date" (not gannon)have not signed up to go fight in his wars and the moderates are sick of the constant threat of being nailed to a cross by their base. Not one of the former embryo's that got up on the stage will probably ever sign up for the millitary anyway so I dont know what Bush proposes to do with all of the potential people in the deepfreezer, he doesnt want to use public money, taxes are our collective wealth as a society, anybody who can afford to have babies made with an embryo could have picked up a ready made kid, when is bush going to get on a podium and promote adopting all the kids out there who could have used the hundred grand it took to make a baby from scratch? Who among us could ever have guessed that we liked republicans better when they were Mr.Burns and not Ned Flanders.
4 - klaus
Dog and Pony Show ?
really, is this overly reported topic about not allowing fed-dollars to support embrionic stem cell research a bit of a show. In reality, many programs are moving steadfastly forward with private donatations or even state-funded donations. Foreign countries are pouring megadollars into their own programs. It's almost ludicrous to think that our lack of fed-dollars will curb what is already taken on as serious work everywhere.
Gosh, even Nancy Reagan is calling everyone in the capitol to persuade them to fight "W".
It's a platform for "W" to show his support to the religious right, nothing less, nothing more.
5 - bhw
"The children here today remind us that there is no such thing as a spare embryo," Mr. Bush said, amid the squeals and coos of babies cradled in their mothers' arms.
Funny, what does that say about the embryos being destroyed every day in federally funded research programs, in accordance with Bush's policy? Surely, if all embryos are humans, then those humans are being killed at taxpayer expense! And when Bush okayed spending federal money on research using existing embryonic stem cell lines, he sent these innocents to their deaths. Or maybe some embryos are more human than others?
The guy kills me. He can't even keep his own lies straight anymore. Sadly, the American public doesn't care or bother to try, either.
6 - klaus
LIFE IS LIFE
Kudos to you "bhw". good point. After thinking about it, I realized that it's also seems o.k. with "W" to have presided as governor over a state that has no problem taking the lives of well matured embryos, namely the hundreds on death row, of which about a tenth were deemded "retarded".
Oh Well.....
7 - just a man
men on death row are not considered innocent life ..find another example please or your remark can be disregarded.
8 - Matthew T. Sussman
Bush is trying to apply articles of personal faith and morality to a scientific issue. That's all fine and dandy on a personal level, but as national policy it's not so hot.
Bush can't use personal faith and morality?
Then what are pro-stem cell lobbyists using to make their decisions? 20-sided dice?
9 - Leoniceno
Of course he can use personal faith and morality, he can do whatever he wants to advance or set his agenda. And I, of course, expect him to.
I just think that it's best for scientists to judge science and preachers to judge religion. When the two are mixed, you get lots of ill-will. And numerology.
Many of the stem cell activists are motivated by irrational beliefs. I've seen some of them on television saying that stem cells will cure everything from tennis elbow to senile dementia.
The people actually doing the research are the ones that I'm concerned with.
The government doesn't have to support any research at all, but the fact that the government contributes such a considerable percentage of research funding gives them control over much of the decision of what is worth researching, and thus, what can be considered science.
For this reason it's imperative that the officials that distribute these grants remain impartial, judging the gains to the nation in terms of knowledge and technological progress. Any attempt to twist the procedure to accomodate debate on social issues has the effect of turning what was an office playing a supposedly objective and judicial role into another means to distribute money to the friends of those in power, and those who are willing to support pre-determined and foregone conclusions.
10 - BillB
>men on death row are not considered innocent life ..find another example please or your remark can be disregarded.<
Oh really? Even the ones who are or may be innocent? Some, the ones with the snoozing incompetent lawyers, didn't even get reasonable representation.
You'd think the "culture of life president" would at least go the extra mile to insure that those killed on his watch got a fair shake.
Bush can stand by and allow someone, such as the above, to be killed in Texas but if I'm terminally ill, near death, and in pain, he and his band of self-righteous buddies are gonna tell me that only God can take human life?
What a joke.
11 - RealCOn
Re: Comment 9 posted by Leoniceno
“I just think that it's best for scientists to judge science and preachers to judge religion.”
Please elaborate on just what this means…
12 - Leoniceno
It's a way of saying that science and religion do not easily mix.
13 - RealCon
I'm impressed by the lack of specificity in that reply...
14 - Leoniceno
3.1 Christians get pissed off at 2.1 scientists and vise versa when they meet and talk about issues that are of mutual interest. What do you want? Witness the reams and sheaths of text that have been produced on the internet in this conflict.
15 - Nancy
I do wish Bush would get himself an adviser who would steer him away from these cynical, cheap, and tacky publicity stunts & photo opshe's so fond of. Talk about the old 'politician kissing babies' schtick!
16 - RealCon
Re: Comment 14 posted by Leoniceno
“I just think that it's best for scientists to judge science and preachers to judge religion.”
Then --- what do judges do?
Great scientists such as Galileo, Newton, Pasteur, etc., worked diligently on physical phenomena -- they were not “judges” of what they learned -- they simply were masters at revealing physical truths which we were not previously aware of …
Great preachers have told us how to live -- what is acceptable behavior -- and what is not in the best interest of society…
17 - Veto
Science and religion do not have to be at odds. In fact many scientist are religious as many theologians understand the value of scientific inquiry. Science inspires us to move forward in understanding. Our religious or ethical standards inspire us to question the ramifications to all.
It seems to me that religion has picked the wrong opponent. Perhaps they would do better asking big business to question application ethics then attacking science for seeking understanding.
18 - RealCon
Re: Comment 17
“Perhaps they (religion) would do better asking big business to question application ethics…”
They do -- one example is the big business of pornography…
Science is free to seek “understanding“ -- unless it is treading on ground where there is a moral question…
Keep in mind -- that during WWII -- certain governments experimented to see how much cold a person could endure -- or how little oxygen they needed -- and other experiments that “could lead to better lives for others“…
19 - gonzo marx
RealCon sez..
*Science is free to seek “understanding“ -- unless it is treading on ground where there is a moral question…*
and then we can leave it up to the elite theocrats of "religion" to bet it right using their tools of Crusade and Inquisition?
cuz we all know how well the Inquisition does in settling these pesky scientific questions...
nuff said?
Excelsior!
20 - RealCon
Gonzo sez..
“and then we can leave it up to the elite theocrats of "religion" to bet it right using their tools of Crusade and Inquisition?
Good tirade…
Typical.
No -- we’ll just leave our morality up to gonzo…
21 - gonzo marx
heh..nice try, RealCon
but you may note in my tirades that i am consistent in saying ...look it up for yourself...make up your own mind, and do what you think is best..
i have NEVER spoken of "Morality"...that is between each Individual and their Faith
i do, on occasion speak about Ethics, and give my personal Opinion there, and always state it clearly as such..
"morality" can NOT be legislated...that comes from each Individual...what our government CAN do is state the conditions of our Nations social contract within the Rule of Law
big difference
what scientists seek is up to their morals and ethics...if we, as a society seek to define or limit such endeavors...we can make a Law via the conditions set out in aforementioned Rule of Law...
see the difference yet?
as for your fallacious world war 2 examples..i think you will find that our Nation has Laws limiting such things already...but a nice try to slip more "nazi" stuff into another of your rants
now, remember what the Church did to Galileo for his "heresies"...to use one of your own examples
i hope that helps clear it all up
Excelsior!
22 - RealCon
Re: Comment 21 posted by gonzo marx
Yes…
“look it up for yourself...make up your own mind, and do what you think is best.."
You speak about ethics… How you determine what is ethical?… How do you distinguish what is right or wrong?
Most importantly here is -- Why should I pay tax dollars to do what I believe is unethical…?
Yes -- if we as a society seek to define or limit such endeavors...we can make laws via the conditions set out in our Rule of Law... That is what is being done…
And don’t ever forget what the nazis (and the communists) have done during our lifetimes… You don’t have to go back several centuries to find examples to support your rants…
I hope that helps clear it all up -- but I know it won’t…
Vincit omnia verities!
23 - gonzo marx
RealCon sez..
*You speak about ethics… How you determine what is ethical?… How do you distinguish what is right or wrong?*
how?...that's my business...how you determine your own is yours...you seem to come from the "christian conservative" school of philosophy in these things...my own prediliction is just that...my own..
RealCon sez..
*Why should I pay tax dollars to do what I believe is unethical…?*
decent Question..that woudl depend on your commitment to your personal Ethical Principal, as well as your own underlying Postulates...if you truly disagree..it is always your option not to "pay"..however you must accept Responsibility for violating the Social Covenant and Laws of our Nation in doing so...
but in simple terms of Christian Morality perhaps the phrase "render unto Ceasar" will be sufficient?
RealCon sez..
*You don’t have to go back several centuries to find examples to support your rants…*
thanx ever so very for your concern..but i am quite comfortable in my mad meanderings...i have nop need nor desire for any kind of instruction from the likes of you, me boyo..
poge ma hone
thanks for playing , please visit us again when they let you out of your uphostered room and the white dinner jacket that ties up in the back..
i promise..we'll even chip in for a new drool bucket for ya..
{8^P~~~~~~~~~~~
Excelsior!
24 - RealCon
Gonzo says -- “Morality"...is between each Individual and their Faith.
Gonzo also says -- “i do, on occasion speak about Ethics, and give my personal Opinion there, and always state it clearly as such…
Not so fast…
mo·ral·i·ty
The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct
eth·ics
A set of principles of right conduct: a theory or a system of moral values
Seems like they are somewhat intertwined…
And Gonzo says "morality" can NOT be legislated...
That would imply that … “A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct” cannot be legislated…
Does that mean that there are no ideas of right and wrong conduct in our Criminal Law?
Then gonzo shows his lack of self-confidence by trying to slam me (in his mind) by hypothesizing what my religion might be by saying -- “you seem to come from the "christian conservative" school of philosophy… So what does it matter where I come from? You don’t really know… but you think it makes you look important to say it…
Then Gonzo winds down with -- “thanks for playing , please visit us again when they let you out of your uphostered room and the white dinner jacket that ties up in the back…..i promise.. we'll even chip in for a new drool bucket for ya..”
Now why does Gonzo feel he has to inject this?
It should be obvious -- he lacks self confidence and believes he can impress others into thinking -- Wow -- this guy is really cute and smart…
I think not…
Vincit omnia veritas!
25 - gonzo marx
well now..i did say morality can not be legislated...what can be legislated, and described as well as enforced by Law is Behavior
as for the difference between "morality" and "ethics"..you are correct in stating that i think there is a difference between the two..
for each word, you can find 3 main definitions..you hit close when you differentiate between "a set of Principles" and a "series of Ideas"
a nuance..i know...but i'm a bit picky
your mileage may vary
i can be called many things..cute ain't one of 'em
as for "right or wrong" in our Judicial system...some Laws you may think are "right" and others may think are "wrong" and vice versa
"right" and "wrong" can very easily be Subjective...that's why we have a Rule Of Law...one would hope that the Laws are "right" and punish what is "wrong" ...but since the very Definitions fo those words are Subjective and can vary....it is up to our Laws to define what is or is not acceptable Behavior for our Society..and outline the punishments for transgressions within the Context of the Principles put forward in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights with the attendant Amendments
hopefully that is enough of civics class
hopefully you will not require a further "injection"
nuff said
Excelsior!