Fox's Garrett reported that Bush authorized federally funded research on 78 stem cell lines; did not mention that only 22 of them are available
SUMMARY: On Fox News' Special Report, Major Garrett reported that President Bush "authorized federal research on 78 stem cell lines," but omitted the fact that only 22 of those lines are currently available to U.S. researchers.
On the July 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News correspondent Major Garrett reported that President Bush "authorized federal research on 78 stem cell lines" that were created prior to August 9, 2001, but omitted the number of those lines that are currently available to U.S. researchers. While the National Institutes of Health (NIH) does list 78 stem cell lines as being eligible for federal funding under Bush's policy, the NIH lists only 22 of them as currently "available" for federally funded research -- meaning stem cell lines that have sufficient research "quality" and can be legally obtained by U.S. researchers.
Furthermore, as Media Matters has noted, a March 3, 2004, Washington Post article reported a previously unpublished assessment by an NIH administrator, Dr. James Battey Jr., that because of the "collapse[]" of some stem cell lines and the inaccessibility of many others -- due to foreign labs' unwillingness or legal inability to export their cell lines to the United States -- "the 'best-case' scenario is that only 23 cell colonies" out of the 78 eligible under Bush's funding policy "will ever be available to U.S. researchers."
From the July 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
GARRETT: On August 9, 2001, President Bush authorized federal research on 78 stem cell lines taken from embryos created for fertility clinics before that date, but opposing federal research on embryos created or discarded since then. Now, supporting the president, parents like Steve Johnson, whose daughter was born from a fertility-clinic embryo. Johnson said his own paralysis, which embryonic stem cell research might one day cure, wasn't worth sacrificing embryos.
JOHNSON: Would I kill my daughter so I could walk again? Should I have an incremental benefit at the expense of someone else's son or daughter? Of course not.
Should I have an incremental benefit at the expense of someone else's son or daughter? Of course not.
I wonder what Mr. Johnson's opinion is about the Iraq war.
"Hmmm Should I have an incremental benefit at the expense of someone else's son or daughter? Of course not. I wonder what Mr. Johnson's opinion is about the Iraq war."
Hi - Thank you for inviting me to participate in your forum. I believe that you have taken my comments out of context, but I will reply anyway. There are many differences between the two scenarios, the biggest of which is that one person (the airman, soldier, sailor, marine, etc.) is a volunteer, where as the other person (the embryo) has not voluntered. In case you might make the argument that an embryo is not a human, scientists have isolated/identified DNA in embryos three days post-conception. That means that hair, eye and skin color, mental capacity, build, temperment and many other features that make each of us unique is already locked in. Human embryos have human DNA, and DNA is what makes us human. Steve Johnson
"Human embryos have human DNA, and DNA is what makes us human."
Mr. Johnson,
Of course it's going to have DNA, it's genetic material. DNA is what develops us into humans, it is the blueprint we are based on. An acorn grows into a tree, but an acorn is not a tree. The two are no more equivalent than an embryo and a fully-grown human.
As another poster admitted on another thread, these embryos are "dead" already. There is no chance for use, so they will be discarded. So perhaps a more appropriate scenario for you to bring up would be:would you use someone's deceased child to further your health? Of course you would, as long as the family accepted that. And in this case, there are no such parental approval issues. If these are actually other people's "sons and daughters", as you say, then surely those people are outraged that their children are being thrown into the trash. Obviously this is not the case.
It's a wonderful thing that you were able to get a daughter through these means. However, the embryos in question are in a completely different category, they are distinctly separated from those that people will actually adopt. Naturally I understand you have an emotional connection to this issue because of your daughter, but hopefully this will help you to see things from another viewpoint.
I should have started by saying that all I want to do is to provide some education on this issue. I expect no one to agree completely with me, but at least I can provide some balance against the incomplete and sometimes purposefully inaccurate reporting.
According to CNN and Fox, I am anti-stem cell research. I'm in a wheelchair for 13 years, and I'm against my cure? Does that make sense? I don't think so!
The media does a poor job of differentiating between stem cell research that works now, and that nobody should oppose (except our U.S. House of Reps, who did not pass its bill on Tuesday), which is adult stem cell research (ASCR), and research that is at best decades away from a cure (in reality it will never work as a cure; the goal of researchers is fetal farming and cloning) called embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).
Some facts: --ASCR has treated thousands of with at least 72 different diseases, conditions, etc. The only ESCR treatment attempts on humans resulted in hair, teeth and bone growing in the patient’s brains.
--ESCR is legal in the United States. There is no prohibition against it in the private sector. Which is why a companies like Johnson & Johnson, and more than 50 others, are on board.
--Any state can also fund their own ESCR through their own universities (or companies located in state). California is the best example of this; they are spending $3B on research, (that's 3,000 millionaires lined up!).
--88% of the 400,000 frozen embryos in the U.S. are still being used by their families to extend their families, or the family has made no decision regarding the use of the embryo. There are 2.1 million married couples in the U.S. who are experiencing infertility.
--If embryo adoption were promoted by the media, the demand would by far outstrip the supply of less than 50,000 available embryos.
--Mary Tyler Moore, Michael J. Fox, Nancy Reagan and I all agree that stem cell research must be conducted to provide hope for millions. My questions to them would be, "Do you want a treatment?" and "Do you want it soon?" If the answers are "Yes,” then ASCR is available now (not for every disease, but the number grows every month). If the answers are "No" then they can wait decades for an ESCR "cure" that will never happen.
Having provided that info, I'm ready for your argument. I'm not sure why you think the embryos are dead. If they are dead, they can be used for neither research nor adoption. You need a live embryo in order to extract stem cells. Frozen does not equal dead. In both cases (research or adoption) the embryo must survive the thawing process.
I’m also not sure why you are breaking the embryos into categories. There are about 400,000 frozen embryos in the U.S.; all of them are frozen, all of them are human and all of them are embryos. There are no distinguishing features that show that one is good for research and another will be someone’s child.
If embryos are being destroyed, it is because the parent or other keeper of the embryo (the decision makers at the IVF clinics) CHOOSES to have them destroyed. They could instead donate them to private, state-sponsored or international research companies and/or universities.
The ideal option, to me, is adoption. If that is not the choice for someone else, they can donate them for research. I think that is wrong, but under current law that is their choice.
Finally, I didn't realize the old "acorn and oak tree" argument was still being used. Do you belong to NOW? Does it comfort you to dehumanize the issue by comparing a tree and a human? If there is no acorn, there is no oak tree. An acorn is one step in the life cycle of an oak tree, the same as an embryo is one step in the life cycle of a human, just like childhood, adolescence, and old age. If the embryo is destroyed, we will never get to know that person. I hope that embryo destroyed isn't the doctor who is going to save my life someday or the future spouse of my daughter.
JOHNSON: "Would I kill my daughter so I could walk again? Should I have an incremental benefit at the expense of someone else's son or daughter? Of course not."
Wowzer! How do the "pro life" Republicans, then, explain what our troops are doing over in Iraq? Thousands of our sons and daughters are being killed for Johnson's BENEFIT (to keep him "incrementally" safe, so goes the rationalization) ... so where is the outrage?
2500 families await the answer as to why it's OK to expend their children's lives for Johnson's benefit, but it's not OK for Johnson's kid to be killed for Johnson's benefit.
This PRO LIFE thingie is so complicated!
And don't just say "it's different". It's different because WHY??
They just make up the rules as they go along. If you're looking for consistency in conservative policy, and I've picked up my fair share of rocks, you'll find none.
Death penalty? Fine! War? GREAT! Abortion? MURDER! Fetal stem cells being used to find cures for fatal and debilitating diseases? DESECRATION!
For them, life begins at conception and ends when they feel like ending it.
I think your antiwar analogy falls apart if you apply it say to our police.
A total of 1,635 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty during the past 10 years, an average of one death every 53.5 hours or 163 per year. There were 155 law enforcement officers killed in 2005.
By your line of reasoning,
Thousands of our (police) sons and daughters are being killed for Johnson's BENEFIT (to keep him "incrementally" safe, so goes the rationalization) ... so where is the outrage?
1,635 families await the answer as to why it's OK to expend their law officer children's lives for Johnson's benefit, but it's not OK for Johnson's kid to be killed for Johnson's benefit.
As you can see, (I hope,) they are two different things. Law officer families don't wait for an answer. They know that their loved one's loss was in the quest of providing safety to fellow countrymen. Yes many heroic people make the ultimate sacrifice to bring peace, freedom, and security to millions around the world. It is they who choose to do so. Whether they be police, armed forces, firefighters or others, they made the decision to enlist or apply knowing the risks they may one day die for their country.
The little girl would have no choice. Is her life worth less than her father's so he can improve his?
I think Johnson makes a great point about the immorality of using innocents so our lives can be made easier. I doubt if there is a father alive who would sacrifice his daughter for his benefit. If there is, I feel sorry for the daughter.
"I think your antiwar analogy falls apart if you apply it say to our police."
It would fall apart if that was the anology he actually made. Having a police force is not a choice. It's a basic necessity of modern industrialized society. Sometimes, going to war isn't a choice either, at least practically speaking.
Iraq, however, was a choice on the part of the administration. Condoleeza admitted it herself. And the comparison between the direct protection of police and the "flypaper theory" of distracting terrorists so that they won't attack us domestically is shockingly, let me repeat, shockingly silly. My jaw literally dropped, unable to believe my own eyes.
The difference is of Grand Canyon proportions, and makes your substitution for Tex's analogy quite comical. "Your Lexus fails the test...if we try to use it as an airplane...". Well, yes. If you try to apply it to something completely inappropriate, it doesn't work.
I know I've been picking on you lately, but in all seriousness...you're earning it.
We're talking DEEPLY HELD PRINCIPLES here.
One view is that "Every Single Life is Precious."
Another view is "the Greater Good".
I'm a "greater good" believer, but as Brabanito points out, our leaders cannot be trusted to expend lives on THEIR rationalization of what the "greater good" IS. Iraq is for the Greater Good of Halliburtion, Carlyle, and Exxon. The only way it can be made to seem to be "making ME safer" is through convoluted and dishonest rhetoric.
As a result, WE, America, are "liberating to DEATH" tens of thousands of Iraqis, while expending our brave young soldiers for Bush's EGO, and for CASH. DISGUSTING is too weak a word!
JUST war is, unfortunately, a reality of life, as is the need for Police. I GET that just fine. What I DON'T get is people who say "every life is precious" supporting Bush's adventure in Iraq. It does not compute.
The POINT is the hypocricy ... or put another way, the application of "moral relativism" applied by people who simultaneously claim "moral certainty" and cleaving to "CORE PRINCIPLES" about the sanctity of LIFE. IT'S A CROCK, and your "it's different" explanation only underscores that Rightwing "principles" are as strongly held as a rabbit's fidelity.
Your analogy (couldn't go with Tex's or mine, huh?) is false for other reasons as well. Police officers, like soldiers, choose to do their jobs, knowing full well they may be killed. Iraqi children killed in the war, like the blastocysts you are so concerned with, had no choice. Innocent life, wiped out, BOOM - bodies ripped to shreds, just like in the grisly abortion photos - for the "greater good." For someone else's possible incremental benefit. Is that morally acceptable to you? How do you reconcile those positions?
Oh, and before you say that it was accidental that those innocent Iraqi children were ripped to shreds for the greater good, please remember that civilian casualties - including innocent children - are inevitable in any war, and the Americans who started this one knew that going in.
I agree that any war fought amongst the population will have civilian casualties. That was a choice we made. Also consider that the sanctions against Iraq prior to the war also resulted in civilian casualties in huge numbers according to many sources. According to "Peace Action" linked to here, the sanctions by the UN caused the deaths of over 1 million Iraqis. Do you condemn that as well? Why is that a better solution? [link to www.peace-action.org]
The sanctions were causing the deaths of children (although not as directly as a misguided bomb) as well. Perhaps fewer children are dying in Iraq now than were dying during the sanctions (I don't know). If the sanctity of innocent life is the sole standard we're using, it could very well be that the war is preferable to the sanctions.
Then again, it would have been possible to have neither war nor sanctions, which would have ensured the maximum protection of innocent life without regard to anyone's subjective notion of the greater good. AA's viewpoint seems to be an absolutist belief in protection of innocent life without consideration of subjective notions of the greater good. So, to be consistent, he would have favored dropping or modifying the U.N. sanctions, and he would have been anti-Iraq war.
Never mind that the rest of the media is biased. Of course you don't see Media Matters covering that.
For them, life begins at conception and ends when they feel like ending it.
- fantagor / Tuesday
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life doesn't even begin at conception anymore. The nitwits can't wait that long.
Life begins when a teenage boy thinks about having sex. Every girl/woman who has their period is guilty of murder because unfertilized eggs were destroyed in the process.
There's no logic or morality in shrub's belief system. It's just forcing their faith-based, fundamentalist horsebrit down everyone elses throat.
The point is Bush is trying to catch up with science, he's just taking baby steps by approving research with material that is, for all practical purposes, non-existent.
In a show of reciprocation and compromise, I'd like to start a petition to have mandatory prayer in 100 elementary schools across the U.S.
These 100 schools are ones that have not technically been built or even proposed, I'm just imagining them in my slimy little brain.But they will be filled with prayer, if we all believe hard enough.
See, I can give a little.
A total of 1,635 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty during the past 10 years, an average of one death every 53.5 hours or 163 per year. There were 155 law enforcement officers killed in 2005. - Anotheramerican / Tuesday July 18, 2006 09:06:17 PM EST
We didn't knowingly sacrifice the police! It isn't a part of you contract when you sign up you know.
Great, your an officer now, you should be dead in the next 5 years, ENJOY!
Many people die in accidents too, should I compare that as well. The police officers weren't meant to die for our benefit. The fact that they did was unforseen. More people die in car accidents, should we demonize cars too?!
Think a little before clicking on post...
Who the heck names their kid "Major" anyway?
In general, that's a private concern, as are other parental choices such as corporal punishment.
What amuses me is the thought of him getting caught by a cop drinking as a teenager and being asked, "Are you a minor, Major?"
if his middle name is Richard?