There were lots of warnings about an attack occuring. Yet we are lead to believe it was a suprise attack. I still to this day cannot buy that the intelligence community failed in this regard, when it has fought a cold war with the USSR.

The chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission – New Jersey’s former Republican Governor Thomas Kean and former Democratic Indiana Representative Lee Hamilton, respectively – agreed that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented.

“The whole story might have been different,” Kean said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on April 4, 2004. Kean cited a string of law-enforcement blunders including the “lack of coordination within the FBI” and the FBI’s failure to understand the significance of Moussaoui’s arrest in August while training to fly passenger jets.

Yet, as the clock ticked down to 9/11, the Bush administration continued to have other priorities. On Aug. 9, Bush gave a nationally televised speech on stem cells, delivering his judgment permitting federal funding for research on 60 preexisting stem-cell lines, but barring government support for work on any other lines of stem cells that would be derived from human embryos.

Scientists complained that the existing lines were too tainted with mouse cells and too limited to be of much value. But the national news media mostly hailed Bush’s split decision as “Solomon-like” and proof that he had greater gravitas than his critics would acknowledge.

CIA Director Tenet said he made one last push to focus Bush on the impending terrorism crisis, but the encounter veered off into meaningless small talk.

“A few weeks after the August 6 PDB was delivered, I followed it to Crawford to make sure the President stayed current on events,” Tenet wrote in his memoir. “This was my first visit to the ranch. I remember the President graciously driving me around the spread in his pickup and my trying to make small talk about the flora and the fauna, none of which were native to Queens,” where Tenet had grown up.

Bush and his senior advisers continued their hostility toward what they viewed as the old Clinton phobia about terrorism and this little-known group called al-Qaeda.

On Sept. 6, 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld threatened a presidential veto of a proposal by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, seeking to transfer money from strategic missile defense to counterterrorism.

Also on Sept. 6, former Sen. Hart was still trying to galvanize the Bush administration into showing some urgency about the terrorist threat. Hart met with Condoleezza Rice and urged the White House to move faster. Rice agreed to pass on Hart’s concerns to higher-ups.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/091107.html

Interesting discussion.

Just one clarification - embyros from fertility clinics are not "destined to be destroyed." There are already groups of infertile couples ready to adopt any "unwanted" embryos.

Again, good discussion (most of it), but I thought I'd clarify that one point.

I don't know how this will one will do considering the strong bias around here. I'm hoping people find the hipocrisy funny as I did. I hate seeing political ads and don't upvote them unless they are too funny.

Background:
Michael J. Fox did an ad for Ben Cardin in Maryland similar to the one we all know for McCaskill in Missouri.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CXwHc-RgCs

This is a response ad where they shame them for using a "victim" of a horrible disease by using a "victim" of another horrible disease!

And to set the record straight, Michael Steele says he supports embryonic stem cell research if it doesn't destroy the embryo. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/29/AR2006102900240.html

Also, because artificial insemination results in the destruction of embryos are you against it? If not then why?

"But the issue at hand is, do we create life for the purpose of experimenting and destroying it in the process for the benefit of others?"

We don't have to create any life, we just have to use embryos that are being thrown out any way. Ones that we are already creating and destroying for the benefit of others, in this case new parents whom are unable to conceive naturally for whatever reason. By arguing against the use of these embryos for research you are ensuring that their deaths are pointless when they could in fact be used for the good of man. Regardless of whether or not they will be used for stem cell research they are still going to be thrown out, we don't have the capacity to store all the embryos made today.

Look at the video I linked up thread, it does a nice job of showing the fate of most embryos involved in the artificial insemination process.

"Now let's suppose that it was a hundred petri dishes, each stacked on top of the last, and that for whatever reason, each dish holds a thousand zygotes. Would you make the same choice? If so, why did you decide to sacrifice a hundred thousand lives for the one?"

Okay, excellent question. First off, I think you're assuming that given my stance on the issue, I hold embryonic life equally valuable as post-natal life. I do, in a way, but let me explain. I believe that a child and an embryo are equal in that they both have some value as human life. Then you need to ask the question that in a given moral dilemma such as this where you need to make a decision, is one kind of life more valuable then another. I would have to say yes. In this kind of a situation, you need to make a distinction between one having the potential of becoming an independently sustaining human being, and one that already is...go for the kid.

But the issue at hand is, do we create life for the purpose of experimenting and destroying it in the process for the benefit of others? For some people, an embryo is not life and if that's your position, that's fine with me, I'm not out to change anybody's mind. My position, is that both an embryo and a child both hold value as human life. Is the value equal for the purposes of your scenario? No. But being that it is still human life, it should be protected. The creation of life is the most fascinating and wondrous phenomena in this universe, that a small collection of cells can grow into something that can accomplish great things. It should not be experimented upon. That is my position.

Let me leave you with some small words of wisdom from Thomas Jefferson.

"A difference of opinion, is not a difference in principal."

"I suppose that there is a idealistic 'greater good' argument espoused by Fox and others, but it is morally very murky."

again, we "kill" 350,000 embryos a year by throwing them into the garbage, would we not be better off using them for medicine? Or is it more humane to not profit off "their deaths" in the form of potentially life saving research?

I don't know how the hypotheticals offered establish that a zygote is not a life, though.

You could add the wrinkle that the embryo is the person who shall cure cancer and the 2 year old is the high school shooter #6. Who do you save now? The question that is being missed is "Are they both 'living beings'?

As anyone who has seen ultrasounds can tell you, at a certain point in gestation egg+sperm become something that is unmistakably human. And abortion, whether or not you believe it is murder, it is a cessation of life. At the end of the day, you are harvesting cells from the products of killings.

I suppose that there is a idealistic 'greater good' argument espoused by Fox and others, but it is morally very murky.

Correct me if I'm wrong, (I'm getting my info from the wiki and the internets), but isn't SCNT necessary for creating genetically compatible embryonic stem cells?

I'm all for informing people that SCNT is linked with cloning research. But saying that this loophole allows cloning and closing this loophole, which would disallow embryonic stem cell production, seems a little disingenuous to me.

There is a big difference between taking a cloned embryo and inserting into and womb and not inserting it. As much a difference as taking a sperm cell and inserting it into an egg or not. One is a necessary step to allow a human being to fully grow, the other not.

Jeremy1967 you did exactly what I expected. Dehumanization. Is a person any less of a person becaue they have one cell? Everyone here is still just cells. If you want to break it down scientifically then a zygote is a single cell person and an adult is the fully developed collection of cells but sill, they are both the same human being. Also a human infant can't survive any longer than a human zygote without outside help so where is the difference there? That is why I think the science community shouldn't be allowed to use embryos in stem cell research.

Embryos are thrown away as medical waste if they are not used. That's preferable than using them for stem cell research?

What happens to the fertilized eggs that don't make it to the womb and are flushed out during that wonderful few days women have every month? Does that make every woman who's ever had sex and a period a serial killer?

If you would seriously pick a few cells you can't even see with your naked eye over a living, breathing human being already on this planet, your so-called religious beliefs are a fucking joke.

"If you believed that the earth was flat, does that mean the earth is flat?"
The problem with that line is that the Earth has been proven to be, in fact round. It has also been proven that an egg that has been fertalized with a sperm has the same potential to become a human being as any other fertialized egg that the egg and sperm do not possess seperately. Both zygote cells are in fact living cells but they don't have the potential to become living human being until they are combined i.e. fertalized.

"If you're against ESC research because you believe life begins at conception, then do you believe that conception can occur in a test tube? I believe conception occurs in the womb, not a test tube."

That's a perfectly valid and respectable position to take. If that's your belief then you're entitled to it. But hypotheticlly speaking, if an embryo in created invitro and grown into an independantly living infant in a labratory, is that that not also considered life as opposed to an invitro fertilization that was implanted into a uterus that also results in an infant? Bear in mind that this is a hypothetical situation and only one part of the growing debate of bioethics.

To reitterate for amxcvbcv and Dag, I don't subscribe to the Catholic belief that "every sperm is sacred", because by themselves, a sperm and egg cannot create life seperately, but the human species was created/evolved (pick one or both)in a way that an egg and a sperm are combined expressly for the sole purpose of creating life and propogating the species and in my opinion, not for experimentation.

"As of now there is NO EVIDENCE that embryonic stem cells even hold promise, while other approaches, such as adult stem cells, already have yielded results."

What about all of this research done with mice and mice ESC which has shown to regenerate a mouse's damaged spinal cord. Where are these results that adult stem cells have shown, I have not seen them.

"I'll come right out and say I'm against embryonic stell cell research because I believe that life does begin at conception and thus ebryonic research destroys life. That is my belief."

If you believed that the earth was flat, does that mean the earth is flat?

If you're against ESC research because you believe life begins at conception, then do you believe that conception can occur in a test tube? I believe conception occurs in the womb, not a test tube.

Are you against IVF? The process of IVF destroys hundreds of thousands of embryos each year. I'm not talking about just the left overs that are thrown away. Several are destroyed in the process just to have a successful pregnancy.

There are other ways to get embryonic stem cells than just using left over IVF embryos. Are you against Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer to create ESCs? SCNT uses an unfertilized egg and a DNA sample (usually a skin cell) to create an ESC line matching the patients DNA. This process shows the most promise in ESC research becase the stem cells have no chance of being rejected by the patient.

People oppose SCNT because the same process can be used for human cloning, but only if the cells are implanted in a woman. This has been unproven though, and most scientist believe that the "embryo" would not develop normally even if it survives. They use the argument that the research can be abused, so we should ban it all together.

I am for researching both adult and embryonic stem cells. I've read articles from scientist that say ESC research is needed to fully understand the potential of adult stem cells.

"There is a difference between "stem cell research" and "embryonic stem cell research." Various conditions have been treated with some success with stem cells from adults. Literally nothing has been accomplished with stem cells from aborted feti. Opposing using embryos is not the same as opposing research or not caring about suffering."

First embryonic stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses. Second, name one disease or injury that has been cured by adult stem cells. Third, back to your argument that nothing has been accomplished with ESC, that is because thanks to Bush's restrictions, there are only a limited number of ESC lines available for research, none of which can be used in humans trials because they have become contaminated with other feeder cells.

"Amendment 2 would not criminalize stem cell research like Fox says it will."

Nobody said amendment 2 would criminalize stem cell research. Fox said Tenent supported criminalizing ESC research.

" Easily dismissed via . . . Wikipedia? Please. I'd also ask you to note the word "potential" in your own source."

So your against research that shows potential? The Wikipedia article is correct, but if you won't believe it, try this source from the NIH:

"Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Specifically, embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body. The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst. The blastocyst includes three structures: the trophoblast, which is the layer of cells that surrounds the blastocyst; the blastocoel, which is the hollow cavity inside the blastocyst; and the inner cell mass, which is a group of approximately 30 cells at one end of the blastocoel."

"Blastocyst — A preimplantation embryo of about 150 cells. The blastocyst consists of a sphere made up of an outer layer of cells (the trophectoderm), a fluid-filled cavity (the blastocoel), and a cluster of cells on the interior (the inner cell mass)."

Also from the same NIH article:

"V. What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells?

Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. Of course, adult and embryonic stem cells differ in the number and type of differentiated cells types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. However, some evidence suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become.

Large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be relatively easily grown in culture, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues and methods for expanding their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies.

The amendment in question can be found here:
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp

The prorpose of this amendment can be summed as here:
"2. To ensure that Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures, that Missouri researchers can conduct stem cell research in the state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically, any stem cell research permitted under federal law may be conducted in Missouri,"

The phrase "stem cell research" here is all emcompassing and without distiction, so it covers ebryonic, adult, cord blood stem cell research.

Now, allow me to point a mojor loophole...
(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.
(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

To put it another way, you can clone a human being as long as it's not implanted inside of a mother for the purpose of, or attempting to give birth. However you can use embryos that are the result of "somatic cell nuclear transfer" and experiment upon that as long as it's not implanted in a uterus. Through this loophole it does in fact allow experimentation on human embryos created by fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning) and research into cloning...as long as you don't call it cloning and call it a somatic cell nuclear transfer.