Once again Bush does his best to set us way back...

You know, it's actually kinda funny, but as vehemently as I disagree with Shrub's decision to veto this bill, I have to admire his willingness to stick to his principles on this issue. Frankly, I think it's probably the only thing about him that one could admire, but still...

Let me explain...This isn't like stubbornly holding on to idiotic notions that nobody still agrees with (see: Iraq war, et al). There is vast evidence against many of the things he holds true, so that isn't standing on principle, it's simple stupidity. But this issue does touch on some moral ground not necessarily based in religious belief (you don't have to be religious to believe life begins at conception), and I have to admire anyone that stands on their own principles against public opinion.

Besides...like I said earlier, the next president will pass a bill very similar to this one, so I think the majority opinion will win out in the end. But I can't really blame him too much for doing what I wish the Dem's in congress would do...stand up for what they believe in. I firmly believe he is wrong in this (as in so many, many, MANY other things), but I have to respect his willingness to stand by his own beliefs.

Just a different perspective I thought I'd share. :teeth:
 
I really dont understand why you want to argue with me about abortion funding, I never mentioned my stance on the issue either way.

I stated that the Federal Government funds abortions, THEY DO, but you still contradicted and continue to post facts that do not change that.

Yes I understand that funding has been "cut"(your word), but I never said anything to the contrary.

Because the ability to bill for a procedure does not grant one the ability to HAVE the procedure. There's no place to actually have the procedure performed, though in the rule book, access to an abortion is paid for by Medicaid.

It's lip service to state that the feds pay for abortions; Bush has personally made sure the ability to GET an abortion is not available. The anti-abortion movement has done an amazing job making sure the property abortion-providing clinics were in were either closed or sold to the movement.

Do you understand what I'm saying now? I'm not arguing politics or the number of abortions or anything else. I'm stating there are 2 components to funding abortions: having patient coverage, and having a facility to perform the abortion for the patient. Bush has managed to skirt the 1993 law by defunding abortion facilities.

It's quite a neat endgame, actually. I just wish I agreed with feudalism. :confused3

Brandie
 
Bush has managed to skirt the 1993 law by defunding abortion facilities.



Which also provided other types of basic health care for underprivileged woman. But poor people never did butter George Bush's bread so I'm sure he didn't loose much sleep.
 

It almost makes you wish for a good ole assasination...

Mikeeee




I'm beyond the word disappointment when it comes to my feelings about the current President and my recent posts reflect my attitude.

But what you have posted, even if you're just joking around, is offensive. I haven't read all the thread yet, but your comments are totally uncalled for. Like him or not, he is the POTUS and what you did, not only violated a Federal law, but puts this thread and board in a negative light.
 
Which also provided other types of basic health care for underprivileged woman. But poor people never did butter George Bush's bread so I'm sure he didn't loose much sleep.

*nod* I cannot actually recall an initiative Bush has made or actually supported that helps lower income people. And I'm including the $300 rebate that you may have had to pay back on April 15th.

But bear in mind I actually mute the TV when Bush comes on and I read the close-captioning. I might have missed something. Please set me straight, if I have--I need something to offset the enormous amount of disgust I feel towards the man.

Wait, wait, I thought of something... He has never been racist in his public speeches. Vulgar, crude, condescending, yes. But never a racist. :thumbsup2

Brandie
 
Because the ability to bill for a procedure does not grant one the ability to HAVE the procedure. There's no place to actually have the procedure performed, though in the rule book, access to an abortion is paid for by Medicaid.

It's lip service to state that the feds pay for abortions; Bush has personally made sure the ability to GET an abortion is not available.
With just a quick search I found over 40 facilities in my state to have the procedure performed, all of which accept Medicaid in cases of where it is eligible for coverage.


But you know what, I concede.

The Federal Government does not fund any abortions.:thumbsup2
 
With just a quick search I found over 40 facilities in my state to have the procedure performed, all of which accept Medicaid in cases of where it is eligible for coverage.


But you know what, I concede.

The Federal Government does not fund any abortions.:thumbsup2

I have no idea which state you are looking in, but I'll take your word. Your state has abortion facilities, thereby proving that the feds do fund abortions.

Here's the list of clinics I found across the US that aceept Medicaid or accept a reduced fee for Medicaid patients: http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/category/medicaid.html

Note the number of states listed and the number of states with one clinic only.

That work for ya?

Brandie
 
It sounds like a lot of YOU are living in another world. There are sources of stem cells OTHER THAN FROM EMBRYOS that have been proven to be much more effective. I really wish people would do some research before getting into emotional tizzies.

Amen. Many liberals want to talk as though human embryonic stem cells offer the only hope for humanity, which just isn't true at all. Just because they might currently offer the easiest manner for testing doesn't make it right. Jews and other "unwanted" offered the Nazi's great opportunity for medical experimentation, but it certainly didn't make it right. After all, they were just wasting away anyway. Why not use them?

On the other hand I can understand the principle of not "wasting" the existing stem cells that are going to "die" anyway. However, I also understand that there are MANY people who oppose such an idea on religious grounds, and to provide tax funding for what in their eyes is murder would be no better than what the Nazi's did with the Jews et al. I would have no problem with private funding, optional funding, stem cell donations, etc. but I do not support government funding on embryonic cells. If you want to see it happen, donate some of your own money, donate some of your own embryoes. But don't in effect force someone to participate in what would be, for them, no better than murder.

Our history is full of medical advances in ways that previous generations never would have though possible. Just because we see embryonic stem cells as a potential answer to many problems doesn't mean that they will ever actually work, and it also doesn't mean that 5 years from now we won't figure out something better that won't offend anyone's religious beliefs or social mores.


As for comparing stem cell research to soldiers in Iraq, I find it a bit absurd. Apples and oranges. Opposite ends of a similar spectrum. All of the military personel in Iraq volunteered for the military. The embryoes haven't volunteered for anything. Also, is an Iraqi life worth less than an American life? Is an African life worth less than an Iraqi? I love when I see people complain about being in Iraq and then turn around in the next sentence and complain that we aren't doing anything to stop the civil wars and violence in Africa. What's the difference? IF we went into Africa to help things would be no better than they are in Iraq and then those same people would start saying, "How could that stupid president be so dumb as to think we could fix anything in Africa? We need to get our soldiers out of Africa right now before any more die. It isn't our fight." Doing something about human rights violations evidently only apply when it involves no sacrifice or effort on the part of liberals.
 
Amen. Many liberals want to talk as though human embryonic stem cells offer the only hope for humanity, which just isn't true at all. Just because they might currently offer the easiest manner for testing doesn't make it right. Jews and other "unwanted" offered the Nazi's great opportunity for medical experimentation, but it certainly didn't make it right. After all, they were just wasting away anyway. Why not use them? .

Oh please, this is nothing like the Nazi's. There are also plenty of people that disagree with Bush that are not liberal.
 
Really? I would think repeatedly violating the constitution certainly would qualify one for impeachment, but I guess that's just me. :teeth:

Just because one has "qualified" for impeachment (and I agree, there is lot's of reasns to impeach Bush) does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to impeach him.
 
Here's the Rand Study that I've mentioned....different (vastly) from the one Charade referenced, and that was in the news yesterday.:confused3 I think the difference is probably in the wording of the questioning....And Rand's study was probably bigger than the other (9 clinics in yesterday's.....I can tell you there are at least 4 in my area.....the answers would really depend on geography and demographics with such a small sample size I actually think the small sample size might invalidate the results).

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9038/index1.html

How Many Frozen Human Embryos Are Available for Research?
View the print-friendly version: PDF

Frozen human embryos have recently become the focus of considerable media attention. Frozen embryos are a potential source of embryonic stem cells, which can replicate themselves and develop into specialized cells (e.g., blood cells or nerve cells). Researchers believe that such cells might be capable of growing replacement tissues that could be used to treat people suffering from a number of diseases, including cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and diabetes. Among the most contentious issues in the stem cell debate are whether frozen embryos should be used to produce stem cells for research purposes and whether it is appropriate to use federal funds for research involving human embryos.

Many of the proposed resolutions to the embryonic stem cell debate are based on assumptions about the total number of frozen human embryos in the United States and the percentage of that total that is available for research. Accurate data on these issues, however, have not been available. Guesses on the total number of embryos have ranged wildly from tens of thousands to several hundred thousand.

RAND researchers Gail L. Zellman and C. Christine Fair, together with the Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) Working Group led by David Hoffman, MD, have completed a project designed to inform the policy debate by providing accurate data on the number of frozen embryos in the United States and how many of those embryos are available for research purposes. Their findings include the following:

Nearly 400,000 embryos (fertilized eggs that have developed for six or fewer days) have been frozen and stored since the late 1970s.
Patients have designated only 2.8 percent (about 11,000 embryos) for research. The vast majority of frozen embryos are designated for future attempts at pregnancy.
From those embryos designated for research, perhaps as many as 275 stem cell lines (cell cultures suitable for further development) could be created. The actual number is likely to be much lower.


Vast Majority of Frozen Embryos Are Held for Family Building

Designated Use of Frozen Embryos in the United States as of April 2002
The practice of freezing embryos dates back to the first infertility treatments in the mid-1980s. The process of in vitro fertilization often produces more embryos than can be used at one time. In the United States, the decision about what to do with the extra embryos rests with the patients who produced them.

The RAND-SART team designed and implemented a survey to determine the number and current disposition of embryos frozen and stored since the mid-1980s at fertility clinics in the United States and the number of those embryos designated for research. The survey was sent to all 430 assisted reproductive technology facilities in the United States, 340 of which responded. Estimates for nonresponding clinics were developed using a statistical formula based on a clinic's size and other characteristics. The results show that as of April 11, 2002, a total of 396,526 embryos have been placed in storage in the United States. This number is higher than expected; previous estimates have ranged from 30,000 to 200,000.

Although the total number of frozen embryos is large, the RAND-SART survey found that only a small percentage of these embryos have been designated for research use. As the figure illustrates, the vast majority of stored embryos (88.2 percent) are being held for family building, with just 2.8 percent of the total (11,000) designated for research. Of the remaining embryos, 2.3 percent are awaiting donation to another patient, 2.2 percent are designated to be discarded, and 4.5 percent are held in storage for other reasons, including lost contact with a patient, patient death, abandonment, and divorce.


Embryos Available for Research Do Not Have High Development Potential
Although the 11,000 embryos designated for research might seem like a large number, the actual number of embryos that might be converted into stem cell lines is likely to be substantially lower. Because assisted reproductive technology clinics generally transfer the best-quality embryos to the patient during treatment cycles, the remaining embryos available to be frozen are not always of the highest quality. (High-quality embryos are those that grow at normal rates.) In addition, some of the frozen embryos have been in storage for many years, and at the time that some of those embryos were created, laboratory cultures were not as conducive to preserving embryos as they are today. Some embryos would also be lost in the freeze-and-thaw process itself.

To illustrate how such laboratory conditions might limit the number of embryos available for research, the RAND-SART team performed a series of calculations. Drawing upon the few published studies in this area, they estimated that only about 65 percent of the approximately 11,000 embryos would survive the freeze-and-thaw process, resulting in 7,334 embryos. Of those, about 25 percent (1,834 embryos) would likely be able to survive the initial stages of development to the blastocyst stage (a blastocyst is an embryo that has developed for at least five days). Even fewer could be successfully converted into embryonic stem cell lines. For example, researchers at the University of Wisconsin needed 18 blastocysts to create five embryonic stem cell lines, while researchers at The Jones Institute used 40 blastocysts to create three lines.

Using a conservative estimate between the two conversion rates from blastocyst to stem cells noted above (27 percent and 7.5 percent), the research team calculated that about 275 embryonic stem cell lines could be created from the total number of embryos available for research.[1] Even this number is probably an overestimate because it assumes that all the embryos designated for research in the United States would be used to create stem cell lines, which is highly unlikely.



Conclusion
The RAND-SART survey found that almost twice as many frozen embryos exist in the United States as the highest previous estimate. Only a small percentage of these embryos are available for research because the vast majority are reserved for family building. Among those that are in principle available for research, some have been in storage for more than a decade and were frozen using techniques that are less effective than those that are currently available.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] It should be noted that these conversion-rate estimates are based upon the conditions under which cryopreserved embryos were frozen as well as current techniques to create stem cell lines from such embryos. It is possible that as freezing procedures and laboratory techniques to create stem cell lines improve, the conversion rate could increase over time.

This is a great study and all, but no matter what the case is, researchers can use ZERO of these lines in any federally funded research at this time. All of the donated embryos must go to private research due to the limitations this bill was trying to overturn. This bill was not about getting more embryos to go to research, it was about getting more emryos available to federally funded research. Even 2% of the embryos in storage in these clinics would be a SUBSTANTIAL increase over what is available right now. What is the possible explanation for being against this bill?
 
It sounds like a lot of YOU are living in another world. There are sources of stem cells OTHER THAN FROM EMBRYOS that have been proven to be much more effective. I really wish people would do some research before getting into emotional tizzies.


This is as far as I got in the thread so far. And like probably many others, I have to add that this is so much nonsense. But Bushies tend to believe what ever he says. This is probably the most untrue thing that his supporters have ever said. If it were true, this would never be an issue.
 
This is a great study and all, but no matter what the case is, researchers can use ZERO of these lines in any federally funded research at this time. All of the donated embryos must go to private research due to the limitations this bill was trying to overturn. This bill was not about getting more embryos to go to research, it was about getting more emryos available to federally funded research. Even 2% of the embryos in storage in these clinics would be a SUBSTANTIAL increase over what is available right now. What is the possible explanation for being against this bill?

Personally, and I speak for myself (and my DH) only....I have 3 beautiful explanations for being against this bill. I do not post pictures of my children on the internet for all to see, but, suffice it to say, they are my reasons. I do know that this is an "emotional" reason....but I believe still valid. I have been thru the years of infertility treatment, and the thousands of dollars, and the daily injections, etc., and I believe every frozen embryo is a potential life. I see the proof of that every day.

This is not to discredit anyone going thru a major health crisis that one day MAYBE will be cured with stem cells. In fact, we have many Type 1 and Type 2 diabetics in our families; many family members on my side have had Alzheimers (enough that they participated in studies for genetic links); there are members with heart conditions; many with cancer....including the very strong gene BRCA1 for early onset breast cancer (they can use stem cells to test new drugs for cancer treatments). I just think that there is much more promise with the more stable "adult" stem cells (including cord blood, amniotic fluid, and stem cells from adults).
 
Oh please, this is nothing like the Nazi's. There are also plenty of people that disagree with Bush that are not liberal.



What's that rule? When you have to resort to comparing something to the Nazi's you loose whatever credibilty you might have had? In other words, you've got squat and whatever you say after that is just a whole bunch of hooey.
 
I find it interesting how liberals will so often belittle the people they disagree with. It's a toss up whether that comes before or after the name calling.

Hmmmm. Where do you thing that may have come from? Does the term "libitard" or "feminazi" ring a bell? And those are the ones that can be used in polite company.
 
What's that rule? When you have to resort to comparing something to the Nazi's you loose whatever credibilty you might have had? In other words, you've got squat and whatever you say after that is just a whole bunch of hooey.

I've seen people here on the DIS comparing GWB to Hitler. Does that fall under the "no credibility" rule?
 
I'm beyond the word disappointment when it comes to my feelings about the current President and my recent posts reflect my attitude.

But what you have posted, even if you're just joking around, is offensive. I haven't read all the thread yet, but your comments are totally uncalled for. Like him or not, he is the POTUS and what you did, not only violated a Federal law, but puts this thread and board in a negative light.


Well, I don't think I agree with the assassination part, but it is not unusual for countries to overthrow their leaders. Just because he was elected doesn't mean he has to stay in the job if he is breaking the law. The fact that he is currently the sitting occupant doesn't make him god.
 
What's that rule? When you have to resort to comparing something to the Nazi's you loose whatever credibilty you might have had? In other words, you've got squat and whatever you say after that is just a whole bunch of hooey.



Godwin's Law says, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
 












Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top