Bill,

Have you found any evidence that we're falling behind other countries because of our lack of federal grants for private research? Are other democratic nations financially subsidizing embryonic stem cell research?

These are the issues important to me as a free-trading capitalist.

BTW, Augustine represents everything wrong with absolutists in general. Geez, Wouldn't it be nice to have a pragmatic liberterian party?

Have you found any evidence that we're falling behind other countries because of our lack of federal grants for private research? Are other democratic nations financially subsidizing embryonic stem cell research?

Regarding #1, it's hard to present concrete "evidence" that we are falling behind because of lack of federal funding. That being said, it is very reasonable to make the inference that - because federal med research is roughly equivalent in size (somewhat smaller, but in the ballpark) to the combined expenditures of all pharmaceutical companies combined, and such companies tend to spend money on more advanced science with immediately realizable applications and not the academic blue sky efforts still required for basic ESR - that yes, a lack of federal funding holds up our progress by denying grants to academic researchers at universities eager to delve into the area. In addition, the specific efforts of the S. Koreans - the recognized leaders in the field - are publicly funded.

Regarding #2, yes, many other industrialized nations federally fund ESR , notably Britain, Sweden, Germany, Australia (I believe), Japan and S Korea, to name a few.

The potential of this research and the concept that we are "falling behind" may be a subjective opinion to some, but it's also a perfectly reasonable opinion for Frist to have, buttressing the idea that his latest position is a considered, and not necessarily cynical, one.

I must say I agree with Dr. Frist's position entirely. Look at it from the zygote or fetus' point of view. If you were going to die anyway, and you had a chance, even a slim one, to help the rest of the world, would you do it?

I would.

But then again, I may not be mainstream republican. All I want from the government is to secure the borders, stop spending so much of my money, and to destroy foreign dangers to our country (terrorists being a good example).

Frist got my vote with this one.

I'm kind of amazed that this discussion didn't begin decades ago as in-vitro fertilization began, and many thousands "spare" embryos were created and destroyed. It wasn't exactly a secret.

Before my time. But from my understanding, it was a bit of a contentious issue.

Kevin -

All I want from the government is to secure the borders, stop spending so much of my money, and to destroy foreign dangers to our country (terrorists being a good example).

To be fair, Frist is supporting allocating federal funds towards research that would "spend [your] money." But I support the initiative because -

A. It's not an allocation of additional funds, it's letting researchers compete for existing funds.

B. The current medical research environment in the US is still heavily dependent on academic research that is unfettered by an immediate profit incentive. The removal of federal support would severely narrow our country's efforts.

In short, I believe that maintaining our technological/bio-tech superiority is almost as fundamental as securing our borders and investing in a strong military.

My cynicism about Frist has to do with timing. To give the speech to the NYT on Thursday, call Dubya Thursday night, and then give it on the last day of the session knowing that he's front page all weekend and legislative gains for the Administration are shortchanged reeks of cynical opportunism. I'm betting there are a lot of pissed off Repubs on the Hill and in the WH.

I also wonder if this is a response to the Hillamonster's move on foreign policy and the limited reaction of the left. Ya know, something like, "she got away with it, maybe now's the time for me to move to the center."

While that's not a completely unreasonable view to voice your suspicions, I just can't see such a calculation with moderates trumping the irreparable damage he just did to himself by angering the energized base that will flush him in the primaries.

They have long memories. And Hillary doesn't pay nearly the price with the far left for tacking to the center that a Republican does with the far right.

Doesn't Orrin Hatch, that notorious liberal senator from Utah, also support stem cell research. As well, that uber-liberal first lady Nancy Reagan.

And Hillary doesn't pay nearly the price with the far left for tacking to the center that a Republican does with the far right.

I'm not so sure. I suspect there are more pacifist moonbats out there than pro-life wingnuts. The question is who's going to stay home when an election rolls around or who's going to succeed in dragging candidates back to the fringes.

I'm out of the main stream of GOP...gasp!!!! Oh wait, I'm not a registered Republican.

I've never made my case against stem cell research with emotional hyperbole, but rather with what I hoped was rational Socratic dialectic. On the other hand, you Bill had a complete meltdown in your last post dealing with this issue...so the fatuous lecture you offer here is quite amusing to say the least.

I'm going to stay away from the actual ESR debate here---that is, whether or not ESR is moral or ethical.

What really irks me is how Bill Frist is willing to say in the same day, nay even in the same conversation, that he belives that life begins at conception AND that he supports ESR.

It's simply not consistent logically nor ethically. If you truly believe the former, then you must necessarily work against the latter because it represents a further erosion of such a pro-life position. "That they will be destroyed anyway" is no defense, it is simply visiting wrongs upon wrongs. There are remedies that are more consistent with a true conception-pro-life position: disallowing all further production of excess embryos (something that is entirely feasible now with current IVF technology); disallowing the use of currently frozen embryos for research; providng a publically funded bank for such embryos to be adopted.

OK, I know I said I'd stay away from the ethical debate. So why does that last paragraph sound otherwise? Because here's the thing: I'm not saying that the from-conception pro-life crowd is right. I'm just pointing out the necessary logical leaps one must make in such a position. (Indeed, the Catholic church is by far the most consistent in this respect.)

So my necessary conclusion is that Bill Frist is simply not, and never has been, a from-conception pro-lifer. I frankly am not surprised, because as a medical doctor he has quite a bit of knowledge about embryology that most of us would not. That is not to say that he isn't against abortion; I fully beleive he is. But that is not inconsistent: by the time most people even know they are pregnant, the embryo has developed quite a bit and the situation really is different.

What bugs me, then, is that he would rather embrace the contradiction than truly come out and educate the constituency about the complexities of the issue. He is apparently so scared that the pro-life crowd will abandon him if he doesn't tow the exact "fully protect human life from conception" line that he's willing instead to look like a walking contradiction. He'd rather pander than educate.

Jason -

#1 - Who are you? Are you "Augustine?" I don't know identities from the Greek handles. Your post seems to imply that I directly challenged/addressed you, so I'd assume you are?

#2 - What "meltdown" did I have? I recall that I got thoroughly frustrated with repeating the exact same response to more than 6 times to commenters issuing the very same small government soundbites in the exact same thread, but my arguments were rather cogent and backed with several citations. Citations which none of those commenters directly addressed, simply repeating the same "NOT MY TAX MONEY!" mantra that was immune to the current reality of funding medical research.

#3 - If you are indeed Augustine, and indeed not a registered Republican (proudly, apparently), you wouldn't breathlessly bemoan Frist's betrayal of the "history of the Republican Party" while authoring a post for a site with the tagline of "Collaborative Republicanism for the masses." Sounds like somebody wants to have their cake and eat it too.

#4 - That was the first post at RedState that vaguely reminded me of a Kos diary. Main difference? Less profanity. Thus, one of my main problems with it.

UPDATE: Not Augustine. I'm not sure why he took such particular offense.

mcg -

I believe "life" begins at conception and support ESR. I don't think semantical debates about what the term "life" means rule the argument.

A finer distinction is what ultimate value is placed on that "life," specifically given current realities, IMO.

We all heard that "amazing advances" were going to come from scientific research on aborted fetuses. Nothing much came of that now did it?

Because my position against research on human embryos is one based on morality, I don't expect to sway many minds. I simply don't vote or give money to candidates that support reseach using human embryos.

Most of the advances in stem cell research are coming from umbilical and adult stem cell research anyway. That cannot be denied, although for some reason, it is generally overlooked.

One more step down the slippery slope. Call it hyperbolic if you care to. Doesn't mean it isn't true.

I don't care much for the Republican party anymore anyway. There isn't much that differentiates them from the Democrats anymore.

We all heard that "amazing advances" were going to come from scientific research on aborted fetuses. Nothing much came of that now did it?

So what you're saying is ... you want it "NOW NOW NOW!"

Tell me, what exactly do you think the timelines for appreciable therapies from basic research are?

And are they supposed to happen without, you know, actually conducting the research?

"We all heard that "amazing advances" were going to come from scientific research on aborted fetuses. Nothing much came of that now did it?"

Dude. . . it's been like 6 months. . . you would be the guy in 1904 that tells the wright brothers they are failures because they haven't yet made it to the moon . . .

And in addition to your #2 post, I believe that in addition to "Britain, Sweden, Germany, Australia (I believe), Japan and S Korea", it's my understanding that Israel also has state-sponsored research, and Canada, Taiwan, India, Sweden, and Italy also have bills that propose it or else a serious national debate is taking place on whether to introduce such a bill.

"So what you're saying is ... you want it "NOW NOW NOW!"

Fetal tissue research has been going on since at least 1975. There was a five year moratorium in the late 1980's, but I would say that 25+ years is a good time period to gauge scientific achievement to some degree.

"And are they supposed to happen without, you know, actually conducting the research?"

Fetal tissue didn't pan out. Didn't bring the "juvenile diabetes" break-through that it was tauted to. So, let's move on the whatever else we can research on. Ah, human embryos. There are called "human" embryos for a reason.

Should there not be any limits on scientific research? We keep breaking down and dismissing any ethical or moral arguments against these so called "advances" (or even mere hopes for advances) in science, whenever they are raised against the next area that we wish to conduct research on.

Where does it stop?

"Dude. . . it's been like 6 months. . . you would be the guy in 1904 that tells the wright brothers they are failures because they haven't yet made it to the moon"

No, Fetal tissue research has been going on since 1975....dude.

If one likes to entertain prurient motives to Sen. Frist recent stem cell announcement, it is more reasonable to conclude that he is taking one for the team on this. I would not be surprised that Rove put him up to it (just kidding).

Americans overwhelmingly support stem cell research and want the US to lead the world in this area. It is clear that republicans will lose voters if they continue to cave in to the unpopular views of their so-called base. Frist is showing us that he wants a republican to be President and has at least one clue on what it will take to win the general election.

Bill from INDC:

To be fair, Frist is supporting allocating federal funds towards research that would "spend [your] money."

This is an excellent point! I was thinking that spending other people's money - on what I thought was important - was a good idea! This goes against all of my principles, or at least one of them! You are indeed correct sir. I now support the idea of stem cell research, but not the federal funding of it. If it's commerically viable, some company will figure it out anyway, not the government.

I would have to research your claim that

The current medical research environment in the US is still heavily dependent on academic research

because I do not believe it to be that way (having worked for schering-plough), but you may be right, and I'm too lazy to check :)

One caveat - plz remove the brackets around 'your', since there is no doubt some of it is my money.

Keith -

You non-contextually equate "Fetal tissue research" since 1975 with the modern efforts surrounding coaxing stem cells into tissue replacement therapies. This sort of ignores quite a bit of context and modern ability, not to mention very recent (2005) advances that make the process of cultivating embryonic stem cells efficient enough to be viable.

Your argument about ethics is certainly valid, but in the case of ESR, and the unused supply from IVR, it seems to be an ethical Rubicon that was crossed many moons ago.

Note to current commenters: I'm bowing out of the debate for while, so talk amongst yourselves. Please check all weapons at the door while I'm gone.

I think it speaks well of the GOP that it has a big enough tent to have these disagreements. Probably why they've been winning elections.

Of course, if their base wants to keep winning elections, they'd better remember there's a Democratic Party out there salivating over the GOP centrists.

excatly Bill!

To Red State.

The GOP majority is going to start taking back our party. Deal with it.

I'm just Jason boss.

Oh and I admire your libertarian appeal to pragmatism on this issue as a way around the absolutist extremes on either end (e.g. FREEDOM OF CHOICE! vs. SCANTICTY OF LIFE!).

However, I should point out that pragmatism is not the socio-political panacea that many seem to regard it as. It is a doctrine like any other and thus always runs the risk of becoming absolutist itself —collapsing into the mellifluous nihilism of utility. Richard Rorty is a perfect example of this...which is exactly what I'd like to avoid.

The truth is that there are active stem cell treatments used in human beings. There are 65 of them right now but none of them use embryonic stem cells to do it. They're all adult stem cell treatments. Everywhere that I've looked, the race for treatments in the real world is being led by adult stem cell methods, not embryonic ones.

Putting aside ethics and religion for a bit, what do we have here? A treatment methodology that has shown zero practical application results (and none coming up in the near future) competing with another that has 65 real world treatments and many others about to be approved.

From a financial conservative point of view, if there should be a marginal research dollar assigned, which treatment methodology should get it? The answer is pretty clear.

Now throwing ethics and religion back in the mix. I have to say that Sen. Frist has made a huge error here that strongly invites the harshest language in condemning his position.

Frist is simultaneously saying that embryos at that stage of development are human beings deserving legal protection but that protection against destructive human experimentation is not a right that embryos should have. Even if you're pro-choice, human experimentation to the point of death for humans who are protected under the US Constitution should really creep you out and in a precedential system such as ours, the position is even more dangerous.

Scientific experimentation on human beings is the ultimate short cut to results. Ethically, it should be absolutely off the table for testing a human to death when that human has constitutional rights. For Frist to maintain otherwise verges on the criminal.

Can you remind me, mr lawson, how well 'the GOP majority' has done in Congressional and Presidential elections without the conservatives?

The GOP is NOT going to get all of the moderates/centrists/whatevers. Period. However by steadily moving to the 'center' on many issues, they can alienate most of the conservatives into staying home on the first Tuesday of November in 2006, 2008, etc.

And if you honestly think that the conservatives are running the GOP and you must start 'taking [it] back', explain to me why we have not had border control legislation, permanent tax cuts, or a change of Senate rules so we can get some of the numerous empty Federal benches filled? Not even to start on the CORE issues that many conservatives have: violations of the Bill of Rights - the First, Second, and Fifth Amendments; the disasters of Federal medical care, retirement, and public education; the steady growth of the power of the Federal and State governments, especially the judiciaries.

mr lawson, if you honestly think the conservatives have been in control of the GOP since GWB took over - record federal spending, lax border control, plans to expand government authority and spending on education/health care/etc. - increase your demands that the 'moderate' wing of the GOP be given control.

And I hope you, Lincoln Chafee, and Arlen Specter are happier with the FedGov run by the Dems, because I doubt many conservatives will be voting for the 'Stupid Party', to use Kim du Toit's term for the GOP, any time soon.

As for ESR and Frist, if that was the man's honest opinion from the start, then accept it and move on. If you disagree, just remember the fact when he asks for money or your vote, and maybe write your Senator, if they are a Republican, to tell them you feel he is no longer leading the Party in the Senate in a direction with which you can agree.

Does he deserve to be called a traitor? Not in my opinion, but then I never saw Frist as being on my side in the first place. He was at best a temporary ally. But the moderates here are not helping the debate with their claims that the conservatives have somehow hijacked the GOP. If we had, John Bolton would be in New York, my SS taxes would be going in an investment account, and I would saving up for a Thompson submachine gun.

Yup. I won't be voting for Frist next time he's up for election. I'm in Tennessee. Good-bye flaky doctor.

If this kind of stuff continues I won't be voting for the GOP in 2006 either.

Good luck with that.
Steve

I am of many minds on this mess:
Embryonic life is worth protecting. Sentient life is more valuable though. (Given a fire and a choice between saving one child or a freezer with 1,000,000 embryos, I'll save the one child.)

Embryos due to be discarded are beyond the power of the govt to save without passing laws that they will not pass. I think Sen. Frist wants those discards to save lives rather than be merely unfrozen-to-death.

I may be wrong, but I see Sen. Frist following a consistent course WRT Schiavo and ESR, namely in favor of preventing avoidable death.

Also, I agree with the earlier poster: Sen Frist is "taking one for the team" ... speaking out loudly and publicly to moderate the mational image of republicans after AFAICR he said he will not run for re-election.

Unlike many others, I do not believe that Sen Frist will be seriously running for President in 08, nor do I believe that many republicans will seriously do so ... those who are acting like it now are most likely positioning themselves should Condi trip badly in the next 2-3 years. (Remember when Condi forgot to lie to the Russian teenager who asked her on-air on a russian-radio-call-in if she was running ... her answer was "Da. .... Nyet! Nyet! Nyet!").

So I agree with the take-one-for-the-team argument since I think Frist is out of the elective office game for a non-trivial time, but may angle for a 2008 cabinet post or more. I suspect he prefers honesty to politics.

Guys, come on --- and MCG, I'm not stalking you, honest ;-)

Most all of these arguments are based on soundbites and slogans ("Life begins at conception") without actually giving the issues a lot of thought. The fact is that we make medical decisions that some people may die for the greater good all the time, from triage at an accident scene to (for an example I'm sure Frist is particularly familiar with) harvesting organs from an ancephalic infant while it's still apparently alive.

All this means is that ethical decisions are often a lot more complicated than can be encoded in a few words.

I think it speaks well of the GOP that it has a big enough tent to have these disagreements. Probably why they've been winning elections.

Of course, if their base wants to keep winning elections, they'd better remember there's a Democratic Party out there salivating over the GOP centrists.

Posted by: TallDave at July 31, 2005 04:23 PM

I just wanted to toss that up again, because it needs to be repeated. If the absolutists don't learn it, they're going to have one HELL of a time having their goals reached under a Dhimmocratic administration. And as a conservative Republican myself, I'm gonna be REALLY pissed.

Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican."
(OK, if you're not a Republican, it still applies to you if you're NOT for the other side winning.)

Also: anyone who thinks this is a play by Frist for 2008 need not worry. There's no f'n way he's going to be nominated, much less elected.

Keith,

There is no way to tell if research will or will not pan out until you do the research.

Twenty-five years of failure is no proof that the 26th year or the 35th will not show success. If the outcome of research was known in advance research is unnecessary. We could save a lot of money by shutting down all research, both government and corporate.

I have heard some say that even if embryonic stem cell research does not lead to a treatment it gives knowledge otherwise unavailable.

Scientific experiments on humans is ethical if the humans give informed consent. In this case since the "child" can give no such consent (legally as well as in fact) it is up to the child's guardians to decide. Which is exactly what is happening in this case.

I'm with Senator Hatch on this one.

Suppose from this research we learned how to unfreeze and implant embryos with half the losses of current proceedures. Would it be worth it then?

When you start looking hard at something you never know what you will find.

Now pretty much the GOP supports the war.

Suppose in this embyronic hay stack we find the needle of a repair for spinal cord injuries. Or a better way to reduce transplant rejection. Or even just a way to make stem cells work better.

As I GOPer I owe quite a lot to those who have given their bodies for the defence of this country. Our soldiers deserve those donated embryos.

I think it speaks well of the GOP that it has a big enough tent to have these disagreements. Probably why they've been winning elections.

People need to remember this and remember how important this is, and not simply take their ball and go home if they lose a specific fight. Regardless what happens with the bill, It'd be nice if the "losing side" recognizes what effort they need to expend to change people's minds & not simply dismiss the GOP as being no different from the Democrats/Taliban.

Alright, Kevin, I apologize-I should say that you are like the guy in 1933 who tells the wright brothers they failed because they haven't reached the moon.

One: Here's something we can blame on both Parties. The fact is, there is very little Federal regulation of reproductive technology, because nobody has had the guts to try to get anything meaningful through Congress. Consequently, individual researchers, clinics, and institutes are making up the rules as they go along.

Two: It is not realistic to expect anyone's philosophy or ethics to be entirely internally consistent. It probably is impossible to do. Even if you manage to come up with a system that is internally consistent, new things come up in the world that threaten to break the consistency. There's no way around that.

Three: although I personally dislike Frist, I do give him credit for taking a stand on this. Someone's got to do it, and at least he's willing to step up to the plate. We'll never have a national policy unless more politicians are willing to do this, and face the consequences.

Good thing the "mainstream" of the GOP, according to Bill aren't the ones who actually drive elections.

Oh, and for the record - I'd guestimate it at about .02.

Mike Krempasky

We did it in '94 and we will do it again. If you think the current administration has lived up to the party's platform (which IS a centrist platform) you are mistaken. It has took a VERY hard right and it is pissing off alot of people.

Eric
The things you mentioned are the reason for what i said. When I said "majority" I meant citizens of the party...not the elected officals. Sorry about the confussion.

Gingrich/McCain '08

Sir:
Wondering what other blackholes you feel the government must finance instead of private industry. Perhaps you are aware of some serious research shortage in private industry you could tell us about.

I don't know that individual Republicans have to shamelessly "move to the middle" like Hillary's doing now and Kerry did before. Centrists generally respect the principled stands of conservatives. I think the right just has to avoid branding the GOP centrists as heretics who must be cast out of the party lest it be rendered impure.

Embryonic life is worth protecting. Sentient life is more valuable though. (Given a fire and a choice between saving one child or a freezer with 1,000,000 embryos, I'll save the one child.)

Jeeeez, I wish I'd have thought to make the point this way.

I find it amuszing that during the Schiavo affair, Frist looked at a videotape and many nodded in sage unison that yes, Frist the Doctor has made his diagnosis and it Is Good. Mobilize the Senate!

Today, the Pravda has changed. If Frist the UberDoc can determine if two synapses flicker on edited videotape, surely his opinion on a more general medical topic should carry equal weight.

Alas, the public flogging of Senator Frist isn't about the pros and cons of stem cells, but something far more tacky, whatever it is.

I believe "life" begins at conception and support ESR. I don't think semantical debates about what the term "life" means rule the argument. A finer distinction is what ultimate value is placed on that "life," specifically given current realities, IMO.

I respect that, Bill. But that means that you don't believe "life" begins at conception in the same sense hard-core from-conception pro-lifers do. I'm talking a Randy Alcorn kind of pro-lifer, the ones that claims that implantation-preventing birth control devices are immoral abortifacients---even some birth-control pills which have a stated anti-implantation effect (in case ovulation still happens).

And it is those pro-lifers with whom Bill Frist has lost significant credibility, and whom I believe he is still trying to pander to.

I respect that, Bill. But that means that you don't believe "life" begins at conception in the same sense hard-core from-conception pro-lifers do.

Correct. I agree with that. It occurs to me (see update) that people are using different frames of reference when they use that word.

Well Bill,

It seems like you've overcome your summer blogging depression. ;-)

To get back on topic, I'd like to make two comments:

1). To the best of my knowledge, life does not begin at conception, when the sperm enters the egg. Life begins at implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall. Till then, you've got nothing. In short, Frist's position isn't inconsistant. We seem to be arguing "A" or "B" when the truth may very well be "C."

2). Also to the best of my knowledge, embryonic research has yielded little but rhetoric as far as I understand it. A lot of "if" and "maybe", but not much more.

The one thing I do remember reading about embryonic stem cell research some time ago is that all ESC research to date has fairly consistantly led to situations of what they call "uncontrolled cell division." "Uncontrolled cell division" doesn't sound all that intimidating until you realize what we normally call it:

Cancer.

Adult stem cell research is a working, viable line of research. ESC is an unknown that has shown little practical promise to date.

When all is said and done, it is most likely that Frist isn't helping anyone, or hurting anyone with his stance.

To the best of my knowledge, life does not begin at conception, when the sperm enters the egg. Life begins at implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall.

This is objectively wrong. The scientific community is unanimous that a living organism is created at conception. The implantation point is an artificial construction proposed by some who would favor procedures like IVF (and ESR) but not abortion.

The scientific community is unanimous that a living organism is created at conception.

Unanimous? Not one single scientist offers a dissenting view? Gee, I thinking I hear a flushing sound, mcg... yep, there goes your credibility.

RiverRat,

Have you found any evidence that we're falling
behind other countries because of our lack of federal
grants for private research? Are other democratic
nations financially subsidizing embryonic stem cell
research?

We sometimes blog on stem-cell issues. The following
posts may be of some interest to you.

The
Rise of the East:

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002545.html

Two scientists at Seoul National University stunned the world this year by successfully cloning a human embryo from stem cells. "

Also, see Human
Cloning 2, China:

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001850.html

Cloning Superpower,

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000849.html

and my post; Can H-BD Aware Doctors Save Lives? which also
pulls in stem cell news.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003403.html

You might also find these links to be of some interest. Brownback works to ban human-hybrid research ...

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/jul/05/brownback_works_ban_humanhybrid_research/?state_regional

... perhaps in response to developments detailed in Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html

and contrast that information with the Japanese initiative ; Panel OKs animal-human embryos which allows creation of chimeras but not their implantation.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20011108q3.htm

There is a extremely important fundamental objection that I have not read elsewhere yet.

The government may not be allowed under our Constitution to be superior to the people in respect to our natural right to life. The government derives its sovereignty from the people--not the other way around. So it is antidemocratic (think China) for the government to determine in any respect when and under what condition innocent life can be taken.

It is simply out of the scope of authority of the government. Human life is not a commodity owned by the government. It is ours.

Libertarianism, liberalism, and conservatism are all incompatible with the relation Frist seems to think the government should have in respect to the American people. (Communism is compatible).

Yes, I'd say Trevino did *effectively* compare. But not to Peter Singer - simply to the mindset and logic that inevitably leads to Singer. Hence, the strong disagreement.

Most decisions work on a sliding scale. Simply choosing the life of the mother vs. the fetus in an extremely dangerous pregnancy requiring such a choice involves assigning varying value to two forms of life, and most pro-life people would not begrudge such an assignation of value. Thus, the mere act of pointing out differences in assigned value is not quite the black-and-white gotcha that he's angling for.

Here's a question for anyone monitoring this discussion:

"When and by what right do we arrive at a position where we are able to dictate the termination of other human life?"

It seems to me that if we cannot answer this question coherently, we are damned to be talking at cross purposes.

Unanimous? Not one single scientist offers a dissenting view? Gee, I thinking I hear a flushing sound, mcg... yep, there goes your credibility.

Oh, please, don't be such a dork.

But yes, I think that any scientist who would dare claim otherwise is dissembling. After all, I have never heard of a non-living object spontaneously dividing from 1 cell to hundreds of cells before it becomes "alive". Have you?

Let's put it this way. It's as unanimous as historians are unanimous that the Holocaust occurred. If that's not close enough for you, then that flushing sound was your credibility.

But if you can find one credible scientist who actually argues that an object that is not alive is capable of replicating its DNA over multiple generations, in the process creating a specific cellular structure (a blastocyst) with a very distinct physical structure and two distinct types of cells, then by all means, let's hear it.

After reading all the lucid, well-rationalized banter following your clear, BlenderBoyed prose, I was confounded, and faced with the following conundrums:
A)"...let's call them Timmy,..."
Let's not, okay? Too close to home. Let's call the whole lot "gooish proto-folk," or better yet, "squish in a dish."

B) Do I need to send Billy a freaking camera, or some Paypal grant money? Because the boy hasn't filed one damn Moonbat report this season, and the summer is almost over and they'll all flee the Captol district once the weather (and the Nats fortunes) turn.

Yeah, heavy weighs these thoughts upon me, the overwrought.

But if you can find one credible scientist who actually argues that an object that is not alive is capable of replicating its DNA over multiple generations, in the process creating a specific cellular structure (a blastocyst) with a very distinct physical structure and two distinct types of cells, then by all means, let's hear it.

Any scientist who has ever heard of a prion will be able to tell you that biological proteins can replicate without technically being alive, or even having DNA for that matter.

Find me one scientist (or a high school biology student who is passing, for that matter) who will say that that fertilized egg (zygote) will survive and begin replicating into billions of cells without implantation. You will not, becuase it has never happened. A baby will not form it the zygote does not attach to the uterine wall. Only after attaching to the uterine wall does a zygote become an embryo.

If the zygote fails to implant in the uterine wall, it will not develop. Period. It will not become an embryo. It won't become a baby. It won't become anything. It will simply dissolve.

Game.

Set.

Match.

Unfortunately, mcg just sort of stepped in it there, big time.

As I imagine he knows by now, indeed, there exist quite a few objects that are not "alive" that are capable of replicating themselves - prions and viruses being the two most obvious examples.

One more example of how layman's ignorance combined with - let's be honest here - a hefty dose of arrogance (by declaring the impossibility of such a thing so categorically, you're only setting yourself for a harder fall) leads to disaster.

bill, some nits.

1) mouse feeder cell contamination of embryonic stem cell lines has been solved by reseachers at Johns Hopkins. the eleven "blessed" stem cell lines can be regrown. unfortunately, eleven still still represents too little genetic variability in the face of the hundreds of lines sponsored by, say, the SK government. for ESC to yeild results the government must sponsor basic research until such point as venture capital smells profits, as other governments are doing.

2) ESC research and ASC research are qualitatively different. Embryonic cells are plastic and can differentiate into any cell type. that is what Frist is saying. he recently investigated a "fusing" technique claiming to yeild the same results as ESC by utilizing adult cells-- apparently this did not pan out.

3) I think partly Frist is trying to expiate his sin of supporting terri's law. since the autopsy report is out it is obvious that the poor lady was braindead. her hippocamus was liquefied for cripes sake. Frist's colleagues were justifiably incensed over his refusal to employ the scientific method in schiavo.
But more than that. Frist must be appalled at the adminstration's continued equivalencing of ASCR and ESCR. They are not the same.
And Frist knows this.

Confederate Yankee: First of all, a zygote already has gone through several generations of division before it implants. It is already at hundreds of cells at that point. So are you declaring a numerical cutoff? That something that can divide to, say, only 500 cells isn't alive, and something that can divide to, say, 2000 cells is alive? If so, what precisely is that numerical cutoff?

Or perhaps you're simply saying that an embryo is alive if and only if it manages to find its food source. When a marsupial is born, it will not survive unless it manages to make it to the pouch where it can continue to develop. Does that mean they aren't alive until they make it to the pouch? When a baby is born, it will not survive unless its mother actually provides it with food. Does that mean it's not alive until the mother decides whether or not to feed it?

Again, Confed, find me a scientist. Any one. Not a bioethicist, BTW. And while you're at it, tell him your little story about how a condition for being alive is being able to survive without being connected to its mother. I'd be curious to know how long he laughs.

Oh, and as for the notion that a zygote isn't an embryo until implanation: first of all, a zygote never implants. A blastocyst does. But under the right context, both are called embryos. And if you think I'm wrong, feel free to write all of the embryologists, fertility specialists, and other scientists found in these peer-reviewed articles and tell them they don't know what they're talking about.

Geekfight!

mcg, you really must be running on empty when you start splitting hairs this finely, and begin trying to change the focus of the basic argument.

The basic argument, restated, is that you think life starts at conception, while I argue that it starts at implantation. The problem is that with the conception argument you essentially argue that the process is self-sustaining before it biologically is.

You are technically correct in saying that a zygote doesn't implant. A zygote is the first cell that forms as a result of fertilization, and minor cell division occurs until you have a tiny collection of less than 150 cells called a blastocyst. It is this tiny mass that implants (or doesn't).

My point still stands that if it does not implant, it cannot further develop and in any animal on this planet at least, the blastocyst will dissolve.

Perhaps on your planet things work differently?

But yes, I think that any scientist who would dare claim otherwise is dissembling. After all, I have never heard of a non-living object spontaneously dividing from 1 cell to hundreds of cells before it becomes "alive". Have you?

MCG, the problem is that this is true of both sperm and egg before conception as well. Not to mention that at least in some organisms, every so often the egg will take it into its metaphorical head to start dividing and grow into a perfectly viable baby organism without bothering to wait for the sperm at all (parthenogenesis).

You wouldn't happen to have a citation for this (fairly ludicrous) claim, would you?

The government may not be allowed under our Constitution to be superior to the people in respect to our natural right to life. The government derives its sovereignty from the people--not the other way around. So it is antidemocratic (think China) for the government to determine in any respect when and under what condition innocent life can be taken.

It is simply out of the scope of authority of the government. Human life is not a commodity owned by the government. It is ours.

Well, that neatly disposes of capital punishment and the right to use force in military action or by police.

mcg, you really must be running on empty when you start splitting hairs this finely, and begin trying to change the focus of the basic argument.

No I'm not. You said that an embryo is not alive until it implants. That's factually wrong, and I am demonstrating it.

The basic argument, restated, is that you think life starts at conception, while I argue that it starts at implantation.

Correct.

The problem is that with the conception argument you essentially argue that the process is self-sustaining before it biologically is.

No, I am not. You are the one imposing the "self-sustaining" condition on life, not me. Not only is that an invalid condition for what consitutes life, you don't even have a solid definition of the term.

Does self-sustaining mean that it needs no external nutrition to continue its processes? If that is the case, then there is no such thing as a living being. In fact, all living things require sustenance from an external source to survive. Before implantation, embryos get this sustenance from the surrounding uterine environment. That sustenance is suffficent only for a short period of time, in the same way that a mother's milk cannot sustain a child's development forever.

So implantation is indeed necessary so that it can continue to sustain itself. Thus this thing that you think is not alive burrows through the wall of the uterus and establishes a connection with its mother's bloodstream. It does this by generating a compeltely distinct set of cells from those that actually form the infant proper. In fact, the very first specialization that occurs is to distinguish between the trophoblastic cells that form the placenta and embryonic membranes and the cells that form that tissues of the human body. It's pretty amazing what a non-living thing can do.

OK, so perhaps this is not what you mean by "self-sustaining." Well then, does it mean that it must be able to obtain sustenance without assistance? In that case, a blastocyst does a better job than a newborn baby! I mean, the only assistance a blastocyst gets from its mother is it's placed in the general location of the uterine lining---it has to burrow through that lining to establish a connection to the mother's bloodstream on its own. A newborn baby, on the other hand, will perish unless its mother actively intervenes to provide it sustenance. So does that mean a blastocyst is more alive than a newborn baby?

You are technically correct in saying that a My point still stands that if it does not implant, it cannot further develop and in any animal on this planet at least, the blastocyst will dissolve.

Well of course that's true, but that is not, in fact, your point. Your point is that if it cannot develop further, it must not have been alive in the first place. That's not a valid condition. If you prevent any living thing, animal, plant, or otherwise, from accessing its source of nutrition or sustenance, and it will cease to develop. But it was certainly alive before it did so.

Perhaps on your planet things work differently?

No, but on my planet, I don't try and contradict medical doctors, embryologists, and others who specialize in the field. But look, if you're so convinced, I really think you ought to consider publishing your idea. After all, people have been searching for the secret to abiogenesis for a long time, and you are positing that it happens every time an egg is fertilized!

MCG, the problem is that this is true of both sperm and egg before conception as well.

Well yes and no. The sperm and egg do not, in fact, divide and grow like a fertilized embryo does. Having said that, they are typically considered alive as well. I mean, a live sperm moves, responds to stimuli. A live egg interacts with its environment as well. Now of course, neither has the complete genetic information of a single human being, so there is a very clear distinction between a gamete and a zygote. That's why the conception point serves as such a clear boundary for human life: it is the first point where the complete genetic information for the human being has been formed.

If you don't believe me, just head over to scholar.google.com and search for "live egg" or "live sperm". Use the quotes. Then do the same for "dead egg" and "dead sperm". In fact, if you do a search for "dead sperm", the first citation you'll get talks about the proportions of live and dead sperm in a sample.

Those crazy peer-reviewed scientists! How dare they use such inconvenient definitions for "live" and "dead"!

Not to mention that at least in some organisms, every so often the egg will take it into its metaphorical head to start dividing and grow into a perfectly viable baby organism without bothering to wait for the sperm at all (parthenogenesis).

Yep. That would only serve to reinforce my point though. As I said above, a normally functioning unfertilized egg is alive.

You wouldn't happen to have a citation for this (fairly ludicrous) claim, would you?

Hey, I'm not the ones contradicting medical doctors like Bill Frist. But if you're so certainl you're right, you might want to contact the authors of these peer-reviewed articles and tell them that it is entirely inappropriate for them to use the term "living blastocyst", since you and Confederate Yankee are certain that they cannot possibly be alive yet.

I have to be honest, guys, I would never have anticipated such a strong response against what is such a commonly recognized biological fact.

Please understand something: nobody who favors abortion even attempts to argue that the embryo or fetus is not alive biologically. I know, we're talking about zygotes/blastocysts here, before implantation. But my point is that the pro-abortion side of the argument simply cannot make their point based on biological definitions of life. They concede the biological point completely, and claim instead that the issue is one of personhood, sentience, consciousness, etc.

The same goes for the arguments for embryonic stem cell research as well. Doctors wouldn't even be interested in ESRs if they weren't biologically alive. Believe me, I know from personal experience that some zygotes and blastocysts are alive, and some are not. It's only the live ones that anyone wants---whether it is for implantation, donation, or stem-cell research. Just the live ones.

So the only reason this debate here is remotely relevant is because, of course, if you can successfully shift the goal posts such that implantation is a necessary condition for life, then you've completely neutered the anti-ESR position. Unfortunately, you simply do not have science on your side.

I am stating that an embryo isn't viable and has zero chance of becoming anything unless it implants. Period. Play with semantics and spout terminology if you think it dazzles the masses, but it doesn't change the basic fact that without implantation, the blastocyst dissolves.

You've established previously (and posters other than myself have noted) that you are far from a bioscience expert, despite your ability to Google yourself silly. My inital stance going into this thread stands; if a blastocyst doesn't implant,you've got nothing.

And before you start spouting off about abiogenesis, keep in mind that you threaten the credibility of all your precious scientists.

The vast majority of your biology buddies claim that we all came down via evolution, right?

Well, at some point down the line, evolution is rooted in the "fact" that at some point, a non-living, 4.6 billion year-old universe spawned living matter from inorganic matter...

Unless of course, I'm arguing with a rock.

Confederate Yankee seems to suggest that life begins with implantation.

Well, that is incorrect. Here is a start at the definition of life: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99171.htm

Feel free to expand on this.

A zygote has life from conception (but not by this definition before). Replication misses the point. The key is to think of complexity. Is the organism developing in complexity? Then think of the second law of thermodynamics. Complexity is akin to entropy. An organism that increases in complexity is reducing the entropy of a control volume (the growth is structured).

That means that there is an interaction with the environment the is autonomously driven in general (take the concept out to the limit--the source of organization must be the organism and not an outside agency).

Implantation is for the sole purpose of feeding and exchanging waste. This is a rudimentary function of the organism and does not infer a loss of human sovereignty. (We feed children, the disabled and elderly, yet they are considered persons).

So, I'd say that Confederate Yankee is missing the point of the argument.

I am stating that an embryo isn't viable and has zero chance of becoming anything unless it implants. Period.

First of all, the term "viability" implies a certain state of the embryo itself. But many embryos don't implant for reasons that are no fault of their own. Some women have problems with their uterine lining whereby the pre-implantation blastocyst cannot receive the nutrients it needs to complete implantation. Various birth control devices (IUDs, some drugs) are designed to prevent implantation. The in vitro environment is known to be more harsh than the natural environment, so many embryos don't survive to blastocyst stage that might otherwise.

So many embryos that are perfectly viable are prevented by external forces from developing. Had they been conceived in a healthy, functioning uterus, they would take care of themselves just fine. They are perfectly "viable".

But more importantly: so what? In what semantic context does a failure to implant alone render the verdict that it was never alive to begin with? Here's how your terminology works: consider two completely identical blastocysts. Truly identical twins. One sits in a petri dish, one sits on a healthy uteriine lining. The former dies, the latter implants and lives. According to you, the first one was never alive to begin with. Hogwash.

You've yet to produce a single scientist that shares your claim that an embryo (or zygote or blastocyst) can't be alive before implantation. On the other hand, I've provided a number of references to experts in the field who regularly distinguish between live and dead (pre-implantation) zygotes and blastocysts. It's not a semantic game, it's a basic biological fact.

Play with semantics and spout terminology if you think it dazzles the masses, but it doesn't change the basic fact that without implantation, the blastocyst dissolves.

And I've never disputed that. But you go further than that, and claim that means that it wasn't alive before then, and that's false.

As for playing with terminology that dazzles the masses---hey, if you're dazzled by the terms "live", "living", "dead", and so forth---well, I can't help it. Most people are not dazzled by such words, however. And I doubt they'd mind that scientists use those terms when referring to pre-implantation zygotes and blastocysts on a regular basis.

You've established previously (and posters other than myself have noted) that you are far from a bioscience expert, despite your ability to Google yourself silly.

Indeed. And yet it's not like I just decided to get on Google this morning to see if you were wrong. I have previous experience with this subject thanks to IVF, experience which required that I learn more about the subject than I could have simply obtained from Google. Well, maybe I wasn't "required" to know it, but as a geek and a scientist in another field, I definitely wanted to, so that I could converse with the doctors and embryologists I dealt with.

Having said that, finding peer-reviewed articles on Google that agree with me does help bolster my point. Perhaps I should have used CiteSeer instead so that you wouldn't have such a cute soundbite to work with.

My inital stance going into this thread stands; if a blastocyst doesn't implant,you've got nothing.

No, that wasn't your initial stance. I quote: "To the best of my knowledge, life does not begin at conception, when the sperm enters the egg." Or are you conceding that perhaps you misstated things?

And before you start spouting off about abiogenesis, keep in mind that you threaten the credibility of all your precious scientists. The vast majority of your biology buddies claim that we all came down via evolution, right?

Of course. But all of my precious scientists will acknowledge that we do not yet know how life began.

Well, at some point down the line, evolution is rooted in the "fact" that at some point, a non-living, 4.6 billion year-old universe spawned living matter from inorganic matter...

Correct. If those scientists are correct, then abiogenesis happened several billion years ago. But they don't now claim that it happens every day.

It's about damn time someone else joined me here. Thanks, Paul!

I don't miss the point, I just have a different opinion of where life begins. You argue life starts at conception. Fine. It also ceases to grow after about reaching about 150 cells. It stops growing, and will dissolve, if it doesn't implant.

You are free to consider these blastocysts alive, and I will continue to believe that until they implant, they aren't much except the potential for life. You apparently take the view that an unimplanted blastocyst is a dead organism, I consider it a germinated seed that didn't take root.

They're already available to science, and the only remaining decision is whether our government will support that vital research.

is that the same guy in the first quote?

I don't miss the point, I just have a different opinion of where life begins.

I have an opinion that you are not, in fact, human. Is my opinion valid?

It stops growing, and will dissolve, if it doesn't implant.

Correct. In other words, it dies.

You are free to consider these blastocysts alive,

Sure. Me and thousands of doctors and embryologists around the country who work with such organisms on a daily basis.

and I will continue to believe that until they implant, they aren't much except the potential for life.

Now look, it's clear from that statement that you are making a philosophical definition of life. I've made it quite clear that I am talking about a bioligical definition of life. Now if we want to bring philosophy into it, that's fine, and we may even agree more than we disagree.

In your original post, you said that Bill Frist is not being inconsistent because life begins at implantation, not conception. If we grant your argument, you would be right---except that Bill Frist also says that "life begins at conception." He said that the same day he announced his support for ESR. So he may not be inconsistent by your definition, but he is inconsistent by his own.

Confederate Yankee,

The way to make progress here is to try to nail down the basic assumptions: what is life?, who has the authority to terminate life?, by what right?

By not addressing the fundamentals, you are missing the point.

Obviously, a zygote is alive. You are alive right? Well, you were once a zygote. The function of implantation did not make you "alive". That would be like saying that pulling covers over a baby makes them invisible.

This is not a matter of opinion, that is unless your purpose is only to advocate and not to inform. Lets agree that our discussion here should be more of a discovery. That would be unique.

"To the best of my knowledge, life does not begin at conception, when the sperm enters the egg." Or are you conceding that perhaps you misstated things?

Without sounding too Clintonian, what you biologically define as life and what I consider "life" begin at different places.

I guess I did misstate my position in my earlier statement. Let me try to clarify my position.

A biological process takes place at conception that probably 99.9% consider the start of life. I consider it a process towards life, but that that multi-celled mass only becomes life after implantation. This is not an abortion rights-based view (I'm pro-life), just an a minority interpretation of existing data.

Prions and perhaps other non-living biological things can replicate. Just being biological doesn't mean that something is alive; the very existence of prions upsets that applecart.

Perhaps what we need is a better definition of life.

Obviously, a zygote is alive. You are alive right? Well, you were once a zygote. The function of implantation did not make you "alive".

As both you and I are here to argue that point, I would suggest you are incorrect... unless you are a blastocyst with extraordinary communication skills.

No, I am just a complex zygote.

Life is a technical definition--I'll refer you to the link I gave before and my previous post. Pleae read it as a response to the question, "What is life?"

Note that life is not a dumb process. We don't just communicate, we initiate thought and organize thought intelligently. That brings us to the seperate issue of human life and the other questions I posed.

We do not need a better definition of life, Confederate Yankee. By your own admission you are claiming that you disagree with "probably 99.9%" of the population. In order for you to claim that we need a better definition, you need to establish why your definition is better than the one in common usage, particularly among the scientific community. This might be difficult considering the fact that your definition can only be applied to a small fraction of animal species anyway---the placental mammals!

Prions and perhaps other non-living biological things can replicate. Just being biological doesn't mean that something is alive; the very existence of prions upsets that applecart.

This is a non-starter. Nobody is arguing that replication is the definition of life. Indeed, embryos do not replicate anyway, whether they implant or not. (Twinning being a significant exception.)

But though they do not replicate, the do grow in shape, size, form, and cell count, increasing in complexity; they consume external substances for nourishment; they respond to external stimuli; they accomplish specialized activities. All before implantation.

Without sounding too Clintonian, what you biologically define as life and what I consider "life" begin at different places.

OK, well in order to avoid the Clintonian, will you concede that there is indeed a biological definition of life that includes at least some non-implanted zygotes and blastocysts (specifically, the ones that are alive?)

Remember my first response to you was that your statement was objectively false. I still hold that claim, and you seemed to challenge me on objective grounds. You seem to be shifting now. Again, if we want to debate what constitutes "human life" or "personhood" on philosophical grounds, then I think we will indeed agree more than we disagree.

Just to clarify a bit on my list of reasons that pre-implantation embryos are alive. First of all, the list is intended to be taken as a whole. Some non-living things satisfy one or maybe two of these criteria. For example, a crystal "grows" in size, shape, form, and complexity if immersed in an appropriate solution. Thus there is not one single criteria for life; many are required.

Secondly, as for my claim that embryos respond to external stimuli. I would specifically be referring to chemical stimuli. That is, somehow, they detect contact with the uterine lining, triggering the process of implantation. I have to admit I don't know for absolute sure if that is the kind of stimuli considered as a criteria for life or not. But I would think so. After all, with single-celled organisms of any kind, chemical stimuli is about all their is. That, and perhaps light/radiation.

MCG, you're erecting a straw man. I didn't claim that a blastocyst wasn't alive: I questioned your assertion that a blastocyst was somehow special in that is was alive.

Since, as you note, both sperm and egg are alive before conception, and that a living egg is under some conditions capable of division etc, your whole argument fails. In fact, you have successfully argued that a blastocyst is not alive in any special way and doesn't deserve to be singled out.

Oh, and as far as "peer reviewed articles" go --- the problem isn't that peer reviewed articles use particular terminology: it's that you're insufficiently familar with the fields of the papers to understand the terms of art, but instead sort of make up your own interpretations.

Charlie---thanks for returning. I apologize if I misread your point. I assumed that you were in effect agreeing with Confederate Yankee who said, "To the best of my knowledge, life does not begin at conception, when the sperm enters the egg." I have been attempting to argue this entire time that this is simply incorrect.

But to be fair, you have misunderstood me, too. I have tried not to assert what you are attributing to me, that the blastocyst is somehow special because it is alive. That is another debate for another time. All I am doing is supporting the assertion that it is alive.

Obviously, if someone is arguing that it's no big deal to experiment with them because they are not alive, then clearly my arguments challenge the foundation of that argument. But there are other arguments that could be offered in support of ESR.

And Charlie, I am indeed curious: do you have any specific reasons to believe that I am misinterpreting these peer-reviewed articles when they sperm, eggs, zygotes, blastocysts, or embryos are "live", "dead", or "living"?

It's not like I'm trying to argue some esoteric point about, say, some detailed medical issue. I simply used those searches to point out that peer-reviewed articles make common use of certain conventions that were being denied here.

Riverrat asked this question early on:

Have you found any evidence that we're falling behind other countries because of our lack of federal grants for private research?

This figure shows the historical US investment in basic research in constant 2000 dollars. If you note the figure, under Clinton, federal investment in science has remained flat, but has had its second most significant growth, after the initial "Sputnik surge".

That said, I also advocate more dollars into basic research on embryonic stem cells.