Right-wing Republicans like George Bush and George Allen are completely and utterly inconsistent, internally, on embryonic stem cells. On the one hand, they say that embroynic stem cell research is wrong - despite the fact that it could cure terrible diseases like Parkinsons, Alzheimers, Juvenile Diabetes, cancer and much more (e.g., spinal cord injuries like those suffered by Christopher Reeve) - because it kills an embryo. And that's "murder." On the other hand, they say it's "fine" if embryonic stem cell research (aka, "murder") is done by the private sector. Confused? Yeah, most of us are. Check out the following exchange from yesterday's Meet the Press between Tim Russert and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten. I'm going to reprint the exchange in full, with bolding to add emphasis. Enjoy!
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to domestic politics. The president vetoed a stem research bill, a bill that+óGé¼Gäós called for the use of embryos that were obtained in vitro clinics that supporters say would have been discarded. And instead, have the government subsidize research to see if they can use those embryos to find some use of the stem cells for cures for Parkinson+óGé¼Gäós disease and so forth. Tony Snow, the White House press secretary who speaks for the president, went to the podium at the White House and said this to the press corps and to the nation. Let+óGé¼Gäós watch.(Videotape, Tuesday):
MR. TONY SNOW: The president believes strongly that for the purpose of research it+óGé¼Gäós inappropriate for the federal government to finance something that many people consider murder. He+óGé¼Gäós one of them.
The simple answer is he thinks murder+óGé¼Gäós wrong.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Murder. The president believes that using an embryo for stem cell research is murder.
MR. BOLTEN: Let me, let me step back for a second, Tim. Now, I think...
MR. RUSSERT: Because that+óGé¼Gäós a very important question.
MR. BOLTEN: It is, and, and...
MR. RUSSERT: The president+óGé¼Gäós spokesman used the word +óGé¼+ômurder.+óGé¼-¥ Does the president believe the use of an embryo for stem cell research is murder?
MR. BOLTEN: Let me+óGé¼GÇ¥indulge me here for a moment, and let me, and let me walk through the issue and I, and I will get to your question, because it+óGé¼Gäós a very complicated, very, very delicate issue, that I think a lot of people misunderstand what the president+óGé¼Gäós policies were that he first enunciated five years ago.
First, the, the policy announcement that the president made five years ago was not that stem cell research would, would be banned, but rather that federal funding of stem cell research would be banned. Second, it is+óGé¼GÇ¥and not even all embryonic stem cell research would be banned, just that research that involves the incenting, or the new destruction of fertilized embryos. There+óGé¼Gäós+óGé¼GÇ¥this president, in fact, was the first one to permit federal funding to go to any embryonic stem cell research, but only for lines that had been, had already been created where the embryo was already created. The president+óGé¼Gäós objective in his policy, was to prevent the use of federal funds toward the, the promotion of destroying these fertilized embryos.
Now to your question. It+óGé¼Gäós a very delicate and difficult balance that the, that the president has tried to strike here between the, the needs and desires of science and the morals and ethics that, that our government leaders are, are charged to, to try to sustain. On the one hand, the president recognizes that embryonic stem cell research has, has promise, unfulfilled as yet, but a, but a great deal of promise. On the other hand, the president believes, as, as do millions and millions of Americans, that that fertilized embryo is a human life that deserves protection. The president recognizes that there are wide differences of opinion on this, and that+óGé¼Gäós why his policy has been not to prevent that research from going forward altogether, but to prevent your tax dollars and my tax dollars from going to support the destruction of that, that human embryo, because there+óGé¼Gäós so many of us who believe that that human embryo is a human life that deserves protection, and has the potential to become, become some of the beautiful kids you saw in, in the original clip you showed at the...
MR. RUSSERT: Then if the president believes it is human life, how can he allow private stem cell research to go forward, go forward, if, in fact, that is murder?
MR. BOLTEN: It+óGé¼Gäós a very, it+óGé¼Gäós a very difficult balance. I mean, the president recognizes that there are millions of Americans who don+óGé¼Gäót recognize that as a human life, and that the promise of that research for the saving of life is so important that they, that they want that to go forward. What the president has said is that as far as the federal policy is concerned, no federal funds, your tax dollars and my tax dollars, will go towards promoting the destruction of that human embryo.MR. RUSSERT: But you+óGé¼Gäóre using federal funds for existing lines, which were of embryos. So were those embryos that the federal government is experimenting on obtained by homicidal means?
MR. BOLTEN: Those, those embryos, those stem cell lines, were already+óGé¼GÇ¥those embryos were already destroyed, and, and that+óGé¼Gäós where the president+óGé¼GÇ¥the president+óGé¼Gäós policies draw the line. That is that our tax dollars, from the point that the president made his policy statement forward, our tax dollars are not going to go to further incent the destruction of those fertilized embryos. Let me, let me...
MR. RUSSERT: The logic, Mr. Bolten, as people are listening to this, the president is saying no, we can+óGé¼Gäót use embryos that are going to be discarded by in vitro clinics because, according to a spokesman, that+óGé¼Gäós murder. But we can use embryos that were existing before I became president, that+óGé¼Gäós OK. And if you have a private company and you want to use those embryos, that+óGé¼Gäós OK. Back to the central question: does the president agree with his spokesman, Tony Snow, that the research on the embryo in, in fact, to use that embryo is murder?
MR. BOLTEN: The president thinks that that embryo, that fertilized embryo, is a human life that deserves protection...
MR. RUSSERT: But does he accept or reject the use of the word +óGé¼+ômurder+óGé¼-¥?
MR. BOLTEN: I haven+óGé¼Gäót spoken to him about the use, the use of particular terminology, but the+óGé¼GÇ¥but let me come back to the fundamental point here, Tim, and that is that there+óGé¼Gäós, there+óGé¼Gäós a balance that needs to be struck, and it+óGé¼Gäós a very difficult balance for, for any president to strike, between, between the needs of allowing science that can be life-saving to go forward, and reflecting the ethics and morals of this society. And as, as far as those, those fertilized human embryos are concerned that are, that are going to be discarded anyway, there was, there was a very moving ceremony, I thought, in the East Room of the White House this week, when the president discussed his stem cell policy. And on stage there with him+óGé¼GÇ¥you had a clip of it at the top of the show+óGé¼GÇ¥on stage there with him there were some children who are the products of those fertilized embryos that otherwise would have been, would have been destroyed.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, 128 embryos were adopted. But 400,000 are now not being used, and will be probably discarded. And you+óGé¼Gäóre saying they should not be used for research by the federal government.
MR. BOLTEN: Yes, that is the president+óGé¼Gäós policy.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you then move to close down in vitro clinics+óGé¼GÇ¥if, in fact, those embryos are being created and used by private companies for research and the president+óGé¼Gäós spokesman says that+óGé¼Gäós murder, and the president said it+óGé¼Gäós a human life, why not then close down the in vitro fertility clinics? Because they+óGé¼Gäóre creating embryos that, in the president+óGé¼Gäós view, will be murdered.
MR. BOLTEN: That+óGé¼Gäós not where the president has, has drawn the balance. He+óGé¼Gäós drawn the balance with+óGé¼GÇ¥the line with federal funding, people+óGé¼Gäós tax dollars not going to+óGé¼GÇ¥not going to incent the further destruction of the human life. Look, 400,000...
MR. RUSSERT: But he will+óGé¼GÇ¥he will allow private cell research companies to +óGé¼+ôdestroy human life.+óGé¼-¥
MR. BOLTEN: That issue isn+óGé¼Gäót before him. What+óGé¼Gäós before him is what+óGé¼GÇ¥the issue of what will federal funds be used for.
Look, those, those 400,000 fertilized...
MR. RUSSERT: But he could take steps to outlaw that.
MR. BOLTEN: Those 400,000 human+óGé¼GÇ¥fertilized human embryos, I+óGé¼Gäóm sure the president fervently wishes that, that every single one of them is going to get adopted and turn into one of those beautiful kids we saw at the ceremony.
MR. RUSSERT: All 400,000 are going to be adopted?
MR. BOLTEN: No. They+óGé¼Gäóre not likely to be, and that+óGé¼Gäós, that+óGé¼Gäós, that+óGé¼Gäós very sad for this country. But...
MR. RUSSERT: Karl Rove, the president+óGé¼Gäós chief political adviser, said that adult stem cells show far more promise than embryonic stem cells, and the White House could not identify any scientist who could confirm that. Is+óGé¼GÇ¥does the president agree with Mr. Rove?
MR. BOLTEN: I+óGé¼Gäóm, I+óGé¼Gäóm no scientist, not, not quantified to speak on it, but I think the point that Karl was getting at is that there are alternative means to achieve some of the promise of the+óGé¼GÇ¥of the embryonic stem cells that, that scientists...
MR. RUSSERT: No, he said +óGé¼+ôfar more promise.+óGé¼-¥
MR. BOLTEN: Well...
MR. RUSSERT: Can you+óGé¼GÇ¥can you cite any scientist who believes that adult stem cells have far more promise than embryonic stem cells?
MR. BOLTEN: Well I can+óGé¼Gäót cite scientists on either side of it, but what I can tell you is that adult, adult human stem cells have already shown enormous utility in, in the amelioration of disease in this country. Embryonic stem cells have, have yet to fulfill the promise that many see, but, but there+óGé¼GÇ¥but there is a legitimate promise there, and that+óGé¼Gäós why the president has struggled so much with that difficult balance...(unintelligible).
MR. RUSSERT: But is there any ev+óGé¼GÇ¥is there any evidence that you+óGé¼Gäóre aware of, or the president+óGé¼Gäós aware of, that says that adult stem cells show far more promise than embryonic?
MR. BOLTEN: Adult stem cells have already demonstrated for+óGé¼GÇ¥in the amelioration of disease...
MR. RUSSERT: So you agree with Mr. Rove.
MR. BOLTEN: I+óGé¼GÇ¥like I said I+óGé¼Gäóm not+óGé¼GÇ¥I+óGé¼Gäóm not a scientist and I don+óGé¼Gäót...
MR. RUSSERT: Well, I don+óGé¼Gäót think Karl Rove is, either.
MR. BOLTEN: Well, he knows a lot of stuff, but the+óGé¼GÇ¥look, the, the point here is that there are alternative ways to get to the, the promise that the embryonic stem cells have, and the president, in his announcement this week on, on stem cell policy, also announced that we were going to put extra effort at, at+óGé¼GÇ¥within our scientific community at NIH into pursuing stem cell research that does not involve the destruction of those fertilized human embryos.
Got that? Murder is "murder" except when it's "complicated" and therefore no longer "murder." Or maybe it's just not "murder" because Karl Rove "knows a lot of stuff" - like how to win elections - and that's why this is so "complicated." Because a LARGE majority of the American people believe we should move forward with embryonic - not "adult" - stem cell research, the kind that has the most potential to cure diseases, paralysis, etc. The kind that Nancy Reagan and John McCain support. The kind that could actually make a difference in our lifetimes.
Meanwhile, George Allen and George Bush continue to try and split hairs on this issue. It's "murder" if the Federal government does it, but NOT if the private sector or an individual state like California does it. In other words, according to Bush and Allen, murder's ok when they say so, and it's not ok when they don't say so. Nice to see these guys playing God. Give me a real warm and fuzzy feeling. Or is that a splitting headache and nausea watching these people squirm around, trying to escape their own inescapable illogic. How about you?
He could also do the "scorched Earth" Virginia Republican strategy of challenging "RINOs" who do not conform to his ideology.
(You know, Lowell, you really might want to think about changing the labels on your rating system to something that's more in line with how they're used by your pals here.)
0 - I hate you
1 - I can't argue with anything you're saying, but I still hate you
2 - Those are valid points, and yeah, so what if you proved me wrong, you suck
3 - Wow, I agree with what you said, but you're one of the mean people, so you don't get a 4
4 - You're one of the wonderful "progressives" here, so of course you get a 4. Libs rule, neo-cons drool!!! Yeah, we rock, they suck!! Yay for our team!!
It's like the marriage thing. They use a bible reference to define marriage as between one man and one woman. The bible also says that marriage is a life long covenant...so why aren't they banning divorce.
But since you assume - a la Bush - that yours is the only itnerpretation that matters, tons of interpretations by more skilled and knowledgeable people to the contrary, feel free to follow your previous pattern and troll rate my comment.
Since you have such a surface knowledge of the Categorical Imperative.
remember "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."
If you believe that it is murder if funded by the Fedrs, then it is murder in all circumstances - your actions to stop should be universal, including making every attempt to stop the use of such embryos at the state funded or privately funded level.
Kind of like a Supreme Court making a ruling but saying it shouldn't be used as a precedent. Oh, but that's kind of how we got here in the first place, isn't it?
Got it?
Secondly, on this issue I am simply answering the question that YOU asked in the first post. I apologize if the intellectual level of the ethics involved eludes your grasp.
I haven't checked, but I'll bet Wikipedia has a decent discussion of Kant. You might try there.
As far as "ethics" are concerned, let's just say we have as radically different view on that as we do on most everything else. As does, apparently, Tim Russert, with his Jesuit education and law degree...
The problem is that they made behavior into a religous code punishable by death. They also didn't know that there is a genetic component to homosexuality so combating a homosexual culture could not eliminate homosexuality completely. But they had no access to the science of the matter so they had no way to make the distinction (assuming they would have been so inclined).
Also, I suspect the modern fundamentalists are using homosexuality as a scapegoat for their problem with the disintegration of the traditional marriage. I think their real gripe is with the liberation of women from the bondage of marriage. The biggest threat to traditional marriage is women who don't want to be domestic slaves, not homosexuality.
On the other hand, maybe the fundamentalists know something we don't. Could it be that they are afriad their men will turn homosexual if given the choice?
If embryos are human life, which they arguably are, then using them for stem cell research clearly violates the Categorical Imperative, and is unethical. It would be using a human life merely as a means, and not as an end.
BTW... the SCOTUS, like every court, issues opinions that can not not or should not have precedential value. But you'd need a fairly good grasp of the common law system to understand how that works, and I don't have the time.
That in fact his position was carefully politically crafted - as are in fact almost all of his positions - removes them from being purely ethical unless you are going to argue that his being in office to exercise his personal beliefs is an ethical imperative because he believes he is God's ordained messenger on earth or something to that effect.
It's not a coincidence that some people (wealthy and priviledged) live with certain diseases for decades, and some people (poor, no health insurance) DON'T.
Interestingly enough, they did an entire Law and Order episode on this, where a very wealthy old man was paying for tons of SC research and therefore benefitting from the treatment. By law, they had to stop it and he lost his $$.
Then he died.
As usual, you make sweeping, unsupported statements, and assume that your knowledge and interpretation are perfect and everyone else;s is wrong. Sounds like an indication of your problem, no one else's.
I think I'll go back to ignoring you - you add nothing intelligent to the discussion.
To make it simpler for you, instead of a straight 7-2 decision, it would really be something like 4 (plus 3 concurring) against 2. The decision of the 4 is not, cannot be, precedent.
The result to the parties of that particular case is the same, but future litigants can't rely on some opinion that a minority of the court signed. This happens with some regularity, though I don't have one in front of me right. But no matter -- you're ignoring this anyway.
>you add nothing intelligent to the discussion
Translation: anything teacherken disagrees with, but can't counter with anything resembling a coherent argument, is "nothing intelligent."
Go ahead and ignore. Nice punt. You've shown yourself to be good at ignoring and moving on to something else when your position is untenable.
further - concurrences can have precedential influence if relied upon by later courts: look at Jackson's 3-prt test in steel seizure case
the normal standard is that reasoning in any majority opinion is considered binding on all courts in the US, except the Bush v Gore opinion specifically said that the decision was NOT to be used as a precedent
Oh, and just because an OPINION is not signed by a majority does not mean the DECISION is not binding, merely that the reasoning used to reach the decision cannot be relied upon in the same fashion.
Courts can and do use opinions from non-majority opinions as part of their argument all the time.
And then we get the anomaly opf Scalia relying upon Franfurter's opinion in Gobitis even though that case was overturned 3 years later in Barnette.
I know precisely what I wrote,and note yet again that you do not respond to the point on which you were challenged but change the topic again, and even in the process of attempting to lecture me and others make yet additional misstatements.
So let's make it easy for you: Name one majority opinion in the past 50 years other than Bush v Gore which specifically says that it cannot serve as a precedent?
Oh, and by the way, several courts of competent jurisdiction have already cited Bush v Gore as a precedent, not that it matters.
SCOTUS wouldn't waste their time on something with absolutely NO precedential value; they'd probably deny cert, or remand for some obscure, procedural reason. There may be a few opinions with absolutely no immediately binding precedent - but I've never seen one.
The Bush administration doesn't adhere to this reasoning in foreign or domestic policy. Unless, of course, the end that they wish to reach is an evil end; they certainly have no problem with using evil means.
I hope the day will come when a person's own cells can be used in some process which will cause cell rejuvination. There is not nearly enough research into this. Every 7 years we have a totolly new set of cells so the body itsself can re-invent itsself.
Embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, but certain people think that destroying them without seeing what benefit could come from them is bad. So, the options are destroy without using, or destroy with using and maybe learn something along the way.
After requesting weeks ago that you stop troll-rating the comments of people that you disagree with...and see you continue to do so ...I have decided to return the favor. I'm certain that others have reached the same conclusion.
To have you bitch and moan about other's troll rating you is beyond the pale.
YOU ARE SIMPLY A PISSY MALCONTENT. (Lacking enough cogent bile to fill a single diary).
I am requesting that the troll-guard be switched on so that when your ratings get low enough - your comments won't even clutter the diaries.
You have abused my "big tent" tendency, now you will feel the other end of the broom.
So I'm gonna change gears. I don't doubt that stem cell research is "complex." And this hyper-laissez-faire government, ever since a few Supreme Court rulings in the mid-90s, has had the power to discriminate in its funding, even though it can't regulate private funding as much. (constitutionally, I think...) So in that respect, its more of a practical, than a moral inconsistency.
The obvious moral inconsistency was brought home by Terry Schiavo - its the fact that Republicans like George Bush, Allen & Co. are pro-life when it comes to issues only salient to the religious right; but they're reckless when it comes to war, the sick, the underclass... When you're the federal government, practically every decision has life or death consequences somewhere down the line. Calling yourself "pro-life" really begs the question.
Since stem cell research is complicated, the President should be that much more careful to wield his veto power. We allow the legislative branch to "strike the delicate balances" that are necessary to these "complex" questions. The Supreme Court emphasizes in its decisions all the time, the fact that some, more complex, decisions are more appropriate to the legislative branch. Moreover, when people have such strong opinions on a "complex" issue, all the more reason to stick with the most democratically accountable branch of government - Congress. We can hold them accountable; not Bush.