"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-03Add.35$yv1.46989@news.uswest.net>...

"Andy Groves" <

<snip>

I didn't say they did. Note that the web page that you cite tells

you

that human ES cells were only demonstrated to be totipotent in

2000.

Are those words supposed to be important to the ethical

considerations?

Of course. If they were not totipotent, then there would be much less
interest in working on them. It is their great potential for therapy
that causes the ethical issue. You don't see ethicists, politicians or
religious leaders worrying about trophoblast research, do you? Why
not?

http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/stemcell/chapter2.html

"None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for-
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed,
discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater
than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204
and 46.207, and subsection 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 289g(b)).
(b) For purposes of this section, the term 'human embryo or embryos'
includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46
as of the date of the enactment of the governing appropriations act,
that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other
means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells."

And what does this have to do with my point about the interest in
using ES cells being due to their totipotency?

Do you think Bush should have done what Kerry said he would do, to
"allow funding for EScells"? Perhaps allow stem cells to grow for a
couple weeks in an embryo before they are taken? Perhaps Kerry will

just

sit down with Congress and "get them" to kill the Dickey Amendment?

What I think Bush should have done is not relevant to the argument. My
argument is that Bush is being ethically inconsistent.

What you think Bush should have done is very relevant. You think he has
the power to run around "allowing" or "denying" such things. Your own
words, Andy.

Yes, he has. He has banned the use of federal funds to derive ES
cells.

He can also speak out against the practice of deriving ES cells
in the private sector just as he did, for example, in the case of
"partial birth" abortions. No, the President did not "ban" "partial
birth" abortions. Yes, he did make it clear that he opposed the
procedure, and would support a bill banning them if it came across his
desk.

Bush has made his personal beliefs clear.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html

But a president's political, personal or religious beliefs do not
constitute an ability to create or remove laws.

I have never said they did. Don't put words in my mouth.

There is nothing
"inconsistent" about Bush's position.
It may be not incorrect to characterize his action as having taken
advantage of a situation which allows both sides of the issue to agree,
which is usually called a compromise.

What are the "two sides" in this issue? Do you mean, broadly speaking,
pro-life and pro-choice camps? If so, do you have any evidence to
suggest that pro-life groups agree that the destruction of blastocysts
by the private sector is acceptable, but the desruction of blastocysts
byt he public sector is not?

That's not the same as being
"ethically inconsistent". I suppose for Bush not to be what you claim,
you would have him banging on the Bible, preaching to us in State of the
Union addresses and such, as you seem to have some idea that he is some
kind of radical fundamentalist.

Whether I believe the President is a radical fundamentalist is
irrelevant. The question at issue is his ethical position. Let me try
and explain again, because you are still confusing legality and
morality.

Ethics can be described as the way in which society should behave. An
ethical decision has to weigh the competing interests, values and
worth of different courses of action.

The reason some people believe that
foetuses can be destroyed, but not 2-year olds is that those people
may regard foetuses as having less value than 2 year olds, or that the
mother's interest are more important than the foetus. In a similar
way, one could argue that ethical decisions can be dictated by
circumstance - for example, switching off the ventilator of a comatose
patient who has signed a DNR order.

It is much harder to make an ethically consistent case for
distinguishing between the execution of an identical act on an
identical thing on the basis of who's paying for it.

In the case of
the derivation of ES cells with private and public money, the
blastocysts are being destroyed in both cases, and so their "rights"
are equally infringed. In both cases, society is deemed to benefit
equally - the medical benefits will be the same regardless of who does
the research. So where is the difference in terms of rights,
interests, values or worth?

You tell me. Until you can, this argument isn't going to move on at
all.

You may also want to look up what problems Presidents have had

with

funding such research. Here is a good overview:
http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/stemcell/chapter2.html

I'm not denying that the ethical problems have been around for a

long

time. My only point is that Bush's policy is ethically incoherent.

And I've told you that he is the first president to allow funding.

Which is hardly an achievement, as he is the only president who
*could* have allowed funding. And also irrelevant to the charge of
ethical inconsistency.

So if Bush had not supported funding, you would not charge him with
being ethically inconsistent. You have stated that he "had his cake and
ate it too", Andy.
It is relevant. And so is distinguishing what the real issue is here,
what many consider to be the taking of life, and the complex ethical
issues involved in *embryo research*.

Yes, and as I pointed out above:

- Blastocysts can be destroyed with public and private money.
- Society can benefit from research done with public and private money

So where is the difference in terms of rights, interests, values or
worth?

There
is nothing incoherant or "flip-flop" in either his position as

President

or in his personal conviction.
He has taken action, allowed funding, and not stepped on the

concerns of

the majority of the public. That is called "good work", not "have

your

cake and eat it too".

For the last time: His position is inconsistent because he
distinguishes between the destruction of blastocysts with public and
private money.

What he has distinguished between is embryos that can no longer be
considered capable of developing, and prevented interest in making more
embryos become (however) available for funded research. There is
*nothing* inconsistent about that, and it complies with *current law* in
effect since 1996, at a time when private and foreign research was being
done on cells derived from embryos, human and animal.

Once again, you are confusing ethics and laws.

And for the last time, Bush's position as President does not allow him
to "distinguish between private and public money", as you say above. He
can not "distinguish" anything he has no authority over. President's
don't make laws.

See my comment on "partial birth" abortions above.

If destroying a blastocyst is morally wrong - as the
President suggests it is - then it is wrong regardless of who pays for
it.

It isn't that simple to characterize Bush's position as such.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html
"My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a
strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the
potential for incredible good -- to improve lives, to save life, to
conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones
may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends
whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written
me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family
has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And, like all
Americans, I have great hope for cures. I also believe human life is a
sacred gift from our Creator. I worry about a culture that devalues
life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to
foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the
world. And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this
research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the
hope it has generated. Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue
research offered great hope for cures and treatments -- yet, the
progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations.
Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril.
So I have decided we must proceed with great care."

So once again, tell m