home

Murder v. Destruction

By TChris, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 11:16:40 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

As TalkLeft noted here, it's difficult to understand the logic behind the claim that federal funding of stem cell research would promote the "murder" of embryos without objecting to the fertility clinics that discard embryos or the private researchers who use them. Tony Snow has, um, clarified the president's thinking, noting that the word "murder" was Snow's, not the president's. The president merely believes that stem cell research results in "a destruction of human life." See the difference?

Robert Elisberg gives Snow some of what he deserves, while Joe Gandelman annoints him as Tony Shmo. Yet Snow's fuzzy articulation of the president's view probably reflects the president's own fuzzy thinking, blissfully uninformed by science. The funniest take therefore belongs to Tom Teepen, who says the president wants to make the destruction of a stem cells a hate crime:

"Maybe the destruction of human life suits the degenerate Old World," [a White House spokesman] said. "This president wants a moral science suitable for Americans."

At other times, the president has expressed doubts about evolution and global warming and he is said by some close to him not to be too sure about gravity. Bush has been known on slow days to keep dropping a rubber ball on the Oval Office desk over and over to test the gravity theory.

< False Confessions in Norfolk? | Bail Denied For Police Hit Men on Drug Charge >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Murder v. Destruction | 21 comments (21 topical)
    Re: Murder v. Destruction (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 11:52:48 AM EST
    To impersonate Yogi Berra, the thing about Bush is you gotta remember he's 90 percent physical and five percent mental. What's the other five percent, Yogi? Pretzels.

    Re: Murder v. Destruction (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 11:56:48 AM EST
    I find it also interesting and infuriating that with the Bushies it's perfectly OK for Private enterprise to engage in what the consider immoral life destroying Stem Cell research. The Hypocracy runs rampant and Deep in these people. And worst of all they just don't see it!

    Re: Murder v. Destruction (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 11:58:28 AM EST
    Add Bush v. Yogi, The combination of political pandering and personal fundamentalism "informing" Bush's stem-cell veto is, to put it nicely, disturbing to me both as a rationalist democrat AND a mystic.

    Re: Murder v. Destruction (none / 0) (#4)
    by desertswine on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 12:30:15 PM EST
    The president merely believes that stem cell research results in "a destruction of human life." See the difference?
    The difference between "murder" and "destruction of human life" is the same as that between "civil war" and "sectarian violence;" in bushcode, that is.

    Re: Murder v. Destruction (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 12:34:51 PM EST
    My guess is that the more this line of reasoning is publicized, ie, fertility clinics destroy embryos, the more public outcry there will be against it. I'm not sure it will encourage many of those who are currently against embryonic stem cell research on the basis that it destroys embryos/human life to decide to embrace it...if indeed that's the actual goal of publicizing it in the first place.

    Re: Murder v. Destruction (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 12:36:37 PM EST
    In 2004, just before the presidential election George and Laura Bush were interviewed by Larry King. In that interview, Bush stated the following with regard to stem cell research and the use of human embryos. G. BUSH: That's the big debate, Larry, and this country has got to be very careful on destroying life to save life. And it's a debate that needs to move forward in a very careful way. And I listen very carefully to ethicists who impressed me about being cautious and respecting human life, I guess, is the best way to put it. And that's one issue, embryonic stem cell. G. BUSH: These are embryos that represent life and the fundamental question, as a society, is: Does society continue to take life, destroy life? read full article here: www.thoughttheater.com

    Re: Murder v. Destruction (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 02:30:05 PM EST
    Narius, You aren't the emperor, your reality is not the only one. The notion that the people's money on the federal level, in other words the BIGGEST PILE OF THE PEOPLE'S MONEY, should not be used for this funding is without logical or rational merit. That you simply don't want to care beyond your current level of concern is fine, it's your choice, but it's not a virtue. The more this funding is left to individual states or the "free" market, the less chance there is that ALL citizens of this nation will benefit from this research equally at the most equitable cost. Of course research will go forward, stating an inarguable opinion furthers no discussion. But it will not go forward with the full participation of the American people in their most powerful and democratic capacity. That's not a good thing, any way you look at it. And it should be called out and protested and kept in the public light until election time rolls around and far beyond. Hello? Are these on? Election issue?

    Re: Murder v. Destruction (none / 0) (#10)
    by Johnny on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 02:52:13 PM EST
    What happens if S. Korea regrows spinal columns? They already kick our a$$ on technological development in electronics, why not medicine? Is the US doomed to become strictly a consumer/service economy? I am afraid so.

    Re: Murder v. Destruction (none / 0) (#12)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 03:45:04 PM EST
    Hey, TChris -- Not to be thinking too much like a criminal lawyer here, but "the destruction of human life" which is not "murder" (or some other sort of criminal homicide) falls outside that classification because it is viewed in the law as accidental, or as either "justified" or "excused." Like war, for example, or killing in self-defense, or execution of a legal death sentence. So, Mr. Snow, which is it, according to that great legal thinker, your boss? Is the destruction of embryos to facilitate stem cell research "justified" (i.e., the right thing to do, under all the circumstances) or is it merely "excused" (not the "right" course of action but one which we cannot in fairness blame someone for undertaking)? Either way, it is morally blameless, and the administration's supposed "argument" against allowing it fails.

    Re: Murder v. Destruction (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 05:06:12 PM EST
    ED Beck - It works like this. Some taxpayers do not want their taxes to pay for what they consider to be an immoral act. Presently those taxpayers have elected an administration that agrees with them. In the future, that may change, or it may not. This has nothing to do with private enterprise spending their money for research. I again note that the absence of this spending indicates that they still think the risk/reward ratio is unacceptable, which indicates that embyro stem cell research is not all that everyone wants it to be. et al - Actually what South Korea and Japan is very good at in electronics is "packaging." As far as manufacturing, the various parts are manufactured world wide, and then assembled in various locations. Vietnam is currently one of the lowest cost locations. That will change.

    Re: Murder v. Destruction (none / 0) (#14)
    by Johnny on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 05:46:04 PM EST
    Actually what South Korea and Japan is very good at in electronics is "packaging." As far as manufacturing, the various parts are manufactured world wide, and then assembled in various locations. Vietnam is currently one of the lowest cost locations. That will change.
    Anyone take a look lately at what is actually being developed in Korea? Anyone here know where almost all of the engineering of hard disks and flash drives is done? Want a hint? It ain't the US. Jim, the US is especially good at packaging electronics and selling them through Dell and HP outlets. the US is no longer making the most radical advances in the sciences. Some may be comfortable with that, I however, am not. Neither am I comfy with another nation making medical advances before we do. Neither am I comfy with an activist president.

    Re: Murder v. Destruction (none / 0) (#15)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 05:51:56 PM EST
    ppj - It works like this: according to Bush it's immoral unless you can pony up the dough yourself. Money is it's own moral justification.

    Re: Murder v. Destruction (none / 0) (#16)
    by Sailor on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 07:00:53 PM EST
    It works like this. Some taxpayers do not want their taxes to pay for what they consider to be an immoral act.
    NO! it doesn't work like that. Most americans don't want their money to be spent on an immoral war, but bush says 'stay the course', most Americans want their money to be spent on ESCR, and bush refuses. what do these 2 things have in common? bush wants them, but most Americans don't.

    Re: Murder v. Destruction (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 08:35:11 PM EST
    Do your research before making senseless, emotional comparisons sailor. Maybe you don't want your money spent on Iraq, but a majority of the country still does and furthurmore, what does stem cell research have to do with the war anyhow?

    Re: Murder v. Destruction (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 09:44:15 PM EST
    Johnny - No. The US is not good at packaging. Never has been. We have been good at applications. i.e. T1, which started the digital revolution, was discovered by two British dudes who worked for ITT. The US, ATT and US ITT, took T1 and applied it. BTW - Your comment re hard drives is... about packaging. And remember, it is applications that make the money. Just ask Bill Gates. BTW - Do you work in the technical field(s)? Sailor - You left out the rest of my statement. Typical. Jondee - My point is that Bush recognizes that his base doesn't want it. Great. He will be done, and we'll have a new Pres.. It is called Democracy...

    Re: Murder v. Destruction (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 11:23:56 PM EST
    Some taxpayers do not want their taxes to pay for what they consider to be an immoral act. Jim--Why are anti-choice advocates the only ones this applies to? Every other American is obliged to shell out for things they find abhorrent--the war, Bush's torture program, Halliburton's pork-barrel contracts, the religious right's lie-based abstinence education--the list is very long. But somehow, the delicate sensibilities of sexophobes (because, face it, these people do not oppose abortion because they value lives; if that were true, they'd want Bush out on his well-toned butt; that leaves the reason most people oppose abortion: it permits women to "get away with" making love--and they want the government to enforce this for them) are sacred. People who show their reverence for life by, say, opposing war or researching cures for Parkinson's and spinal cord injuries get no particular pass for their beliefs. Why should we accomodate those who've demonstrated exactly how much they respect human life by trying to turn parenthood into a form of punishment--and on the public dime?

    Re: Murder v. Destruction (none / 0) (#20)
    by Johnny on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 12:41:00 AM EST
    Do you work in the technical field
    I work in the hard disk drive industry. I work on some of the worlds most sophisticated automation equipment, for a company that (only to protect there patented technology) is one patent law away from moving to china. We build Korean and Japanese designed and engineered hard disk drive components. For Korean and Japanese engineered personal computers. Assembled (in some cases) in the USA. Packaged, if you will. The Koreans in particular have been making advances by leaps and bounds in the digital storage market. Samsung is the heavy hitter there. The US manufacturing and design industry is not, or might never be again, what it was 40 years ago. The medical field is closely paralleling that transition as well. When the government steps in and says: "On moral grounds, we oppose this. Since I do not have the political capital to outright banish even the train of thought behind stem-cell research, I will do the next best thing and attempt to prevent any official endorsement of it.", we run into trouble. In 10-20 years when the Chinese economy is bending us over a barrel of oil, when the best and brightest American engineers are searching monster.com for bio-medical and manufacturing firms with the keyword "china", we will look back and lament all this moral imposition. Re. Microsoft: when the same patent and copyright protection legislation gets enacted in china as we have here, much like the company I work for, they will pull up roots and move on over there. Massive amounts of american IT is already being done in foreign areas, the american dollar and talent flowing out the window. Bio-medical research is already being done on a much grander scale there than here. Why? Because of people like GWActivistBush shoving some version of morality down our throats. Because american corporations prefer instead to develop hard-on drugs and leave the philanthropic stuff like, say, easing or curing cancer and paralysis and parkinsons and other things to others.

    Re: Murder v. Destruction (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 05:56:53 AM EST
    Molly NYC - I am a firm believer in women's rights. But if you are going to argue abortion as birth control, you are going to lose. As for the tax issue, why do people who want to smoke at dinner have to pay for enforcement of what they think is a stupid law? (I don't smoke.) Why do people who do not drive have to pay for the costs asspciated with cars? People who think universities are misguided PC groups... etc. BTW - I'm not against the research, I just understand why those who oppose it, are. And again. The research is not banned. It is just not government funded. Which, to me, is probably best given government's ability to muck up things, and create organizations that never die, but just exist to stay in existence. Johnny - Then you have a problem with society, not political leadership. BTW - Hard drives are a rather mature technology. What is happening is packaging. Smaller and smaller, faster and faster. There may be some research involved, but it is of a low content. Outsourcing is a problem, and I hate it. But where were you when we moved the electronic entertainment industries to Japan? In the meantime, big screen TV's are 20% if what they cost. Computers are almost at the throw raher than fix level. If we're to compute we should stop worrying about government funded research and worry about focusing our schools on turning out people who are educated, not brain washed with a phony self esteem veneer.

    Re: Murder v. Destruction (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 06:07:43 AM EST
    ED Beck - It works like this. Some taxpayers do not want their taxes to pay for what they consider to be an immoral act. Presently those taxpayers have elected an administration that agrees with them.
    Bush has never won a presidential election. (note: in the my preview text, "presidential election" is hyperlinked to a site. I can't get rid of it, and I can't access it on this corporate computer.)

    Re: Murder v. Destruction (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 06:41:32 AM EST
    Hmmmm, in my previous I see that I invented a new use for the word "compute" for "compete." I blame all of these types of errors on Bush because my new flat screen monitor is too large to fit in the usual place, so it is somewhat off center, causing me to have to change my typing position... Now, if the evil one had just properly funded ...... pneumatikon - Oh really? Did you see this? I know you will find it interesting.

    Re: Murder v. Destruction (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 08:52:15 AM EST
    As for the tax issue, why do people who want to smoke at dinner have to pay for enforcement of what they think is a stupid law? (I don't smoke.) Exactly my point. Everyone else is obliged to pay for policies they don't like. Why are anti-choicers the only ones who don't? And as far as abortion being a form of birth control--well, it is. Only a complete nutbar would use it as her primary method, but that's what it is. Presumably, you can't get more pro-choice than people who actually perform abortions, but unlike the anti-choicers, they make the effort to avoid repeat trade. SOP for abortion clinics is making damn sure no patient leaves without going over whatever she's been using for a contraceptive, figuring out what went wrong, and seeing that she's got an effective, modern method--pills, IUDs, diaphragms, tubal ligation, something better than the "pro-life" favorites: a calendar and crossed fingers.

    Murder v. Destruction | 21 comments (21 topical)