home

Frist May Break Stem Cell Research Logjam

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 01:08:42 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Received from my terrific Congresswoman, Diana DeGette:

U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), co-author of H.R. 810, the Castle-DeGette Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act that passed the House in May and is now awaiting consideration in the Senate, released the following statement on Senator Bill Frist's (R-TN) announcement this morning that he supports expansion of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research:

"Until today, there had been an ideological logjam in the Senate preventing stem cell research from coming up for a vote. Senator Frist's speech this morning gives new hope for everyone who supports medical research. He is a welcome ally in our bipartisan effort to change the current policy. The ideas and concerns he raised today about H.R. 810 are all minor. I believe they can be worked out to everyone's satisfaction."

You go, Diana. If anyone can get this bill passed, you can.

< Iraq and Mental Health | 36 Senators Sign Letter to Bush on Bolton >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Frist May Break Stem Cell Research Logjam | 11 comments (11 topical)
    Re: Frist May Break Stem Cell Research Logjam (none / 0) (#1)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:44 PM EST
    Frist - Republican = No credit.

    Re: Frist May Break Stem Cell Research Logjam (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:45 PM EST
    Unborn children can't vote... Their parents have abandoned them... They have something we want... Let's kill them and take it. (Substitute any other powerless minority for "unborn children" as necessary, depending on era and local prejudice)

    Re: Frist May Break Stem Cell Research Logjam (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:45 PM EST
    OMFG, Frist did something good???!!! Quick, go see if hell is still warm! Too bad for Frist that there are no shelter cats involved, I'd bet he'd really get all randy at the thought of that!

    Re: Frist May Break Stem Cell Research Logjam (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:45 PM EST
    And as for you grad student, I sincerely hope you never end up with any kind of terminal brain or spinal cord malfunction because, as per your ideology, you'll just have to suffer through it, right?

    Re: Frist May Break Stem Cell Research Logjam (none / 0) (#5)
    by krazycory on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:45 PM EST
    it will never pass. there is too much $$$$ involved with the drug companies here in utah there was a boy with cancer and the state tried to take him from his parents because they refused to give him radiation and chemo. they took him someplace and treated him with 'alternative' medicine and the boy is cancer free now they are trying to sue the state. i hope they win. the drug companies give ALOT of money to the polititians and they wont pass anything that will take $$$$ out of thier pockets

    Re: Frist May Break Stem Cell Research Logjam (none / 0) (#6)
    by veloer on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:45 PM EST
    Jebus, breaking with the ranks? Do not be fooled. This is just a sop to the middle. Elections are pending.

    Re: Frist May Break Stem Cell Research Logjam (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:45 PM EST
    Unborn children can't vote... Their parents have abandoned them...
    Senator Frist proposes that parental consent would be obtained. This may not be acceptable to extremists. I propose the following: if you are offered stem cell medical treatment that would be beneficial for your medical condition, and it is against your moral principles to benefit from stem cell research, then you have the right to refuse treatment. If on the other hand, it is not against your moral principles to benefit from stem cell research, you may accept treatment. I'm tempted to go further, and suggest that it should be against the law for anyone who is against stem cell research to consent to any medical treatment based on it. That way, people who are against this research will be protected from any medical benefit against their moral principles, in case they consent to treatment in a moment of moral weakness for whatever reason, including medical conditions amenable only to stem cell treatments. The idea is that you should live in the moral universe you believe in, and live with the consequences. But you should have no right to increase the suffering of others who do not have the same moral beliefs.

    Re: Frist May Break Stem Cell Research Logjam (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:45 PM EST
    Tell you what, Shortwave, you don't make anyone with my absurd moral beliefs pay for the killing, and I'll gladly forego any benefit from it. You speak of letting others live according to their own morals, how about letting the rest of us refrain from financing human experimentation? Let's be perfectly clear here: this bill is about using taxes to fund lethal experiments on children. On which side of this debate do you wish to take your stand?

    Re: Frist May Break Stem Cell Research Logjam (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:45 PM EST
    Tell you what, Shortwave, you don't make anyone with my absurd moral beliefs pay for the killing, and I'll gladly forego any benefit from it.
    That's one way to suggest a possible implementation of the policy of who receives treatment. It's a misrepresentation to say that federal funding of the use of stem cells from fetuses whose parents consented for their medical use means that the taxpayer is morally tainted with killing the fetus, but I'll allow that this distinction is even beyond graduate students, perhaps because they haven't finished or never will finish (I have, so I can make the distinction). If one does allow the distinction between paying for the killing of a fetus and paying for the authorized use of the stem cells of an unborn fetus, then your argument has no merit. You just want the stem cells to rot. If the fetus can't have them, you want no one else to benefit from them, it seems to me. But, if one cannot resolve the two moral issues, it will seem as if one is "paying for killing." What's particularly weak about your moral position is this. While it is true that there is no moral obligation to follow moral ideals, and decrease the suffering of others, it is morally wrong to prevent another person from following the moral ideal to decrease suffering (provided following the moral ideal does not violate moral rules). You believe that the moral rule not to kill has been violated by following the ideal to decrease suffering by using the stem cells of an unborn fetus. But it hasn't. That violation of the moral rule not to kill (which like any other moral rule, can be violated with justification) was a separate violation, if it was violated (the fetus could have been stillborn). You reason as if the fetus was being killed for the sake of its stem cells. No one would sanction such an idea. Given this, why would you want to prevent the use of stem cells? [I would like the idea that you get what you agree to pay for, and no more, to go further, though this is off topic: you get to live in the economy you voted for. If your economy stinks, prices are high and there are no jobs, tough, even if others who voted differently can live comfortably. Unfortunately, that is science fiction. There is also the problem of the commons...]

    Re: Frist May Break Stem Cell Research Logjam (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    Let's be perfectly clear here: this bill is about using taxes to fund lethal experiments on children.
    Wow, so a small bundle of cells constitutes a child? Right on! So that means that every time my "aunt flo" comes to visit every month, it's really a child?!? Cool, by this standard, I must have hundreds of children by now, and how wonderful that all they ever cost me is a box of tampons a month! Sorry to be crass, but your definition of "child" leaves more than enough room for humor. You really need to go back to seventh grade pysical science dude.

    Re: Frist May Break Stem Cell Research Logjam (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    Let's be perfectly clear here: this bill is about using taxes to fund lethal experiments on children. On which side of this debate do you wish to take your stand?
    This is perfectly confused, so I take my stand on the side of conceptual clarity. As the previous poster points out, the research is being conducted on cells. Moreover, those cells were donated with the consent of the parents. This statement seems to attempt to connect the morality of the research with the morality of abortion, when these are two separate issues, and as if research conducted on stem cells taken from aborted or stillborn fetuses were somehow morally tainted by the provenance of the cells. What is your moral argument justifying this alledged moral taint? Even if the fetus was wrongfully terminated, why shouldn't its cells be used? What is the principle here? An ancient notion of bodily defilement? A religious concern that the soul won't reach it's intended destination if the cells are used? Conservatives have yet to establish a coherent link, preferring hyperbolic and fantastic associations of ideas, with phrases such as "lethal experiments on children" to analysis, but let's suppose that they will eventually overcome their emotions and state a rational argument. Perhaps you believe that the moral rule not to kill is justifiably violated in the case of war; such sentiments as "war is hell" suggest that this is a popular view (I"m not attributing it to you). The point is that there can be publically allowed violations of the moral rules. Now, even if a moral rule is violated in the case of the origin of the stem cells (and this is controversial, and cannot be trivially decided by consideration of the moral rules), there remains the possibility that the moral good done by stem cell research outweighs the purported evil surrounding the origin of the cells. It is commonly held by conservatives who express the slogan "war is hell" that the social evil of war (which cannot be criticized for being "immoral" because "war is hell"), is outweighed by the social moral good resulting from war to the victors. This is intended as a case where violations of moral rules are considered "justified." Given that there are such situations, what is it about stem cell research that cannot possibly be justified, even for its great potential to relieve human suffering?

    Frist May Break Stem Cell Research Logjam | 11 comments (11 topical)