Conservatives Draft a 'Bioethics Agenda' for President

[Rose Siding]

Frustrated by Congress's failure to ban human cloning or place even modest limits on human embryo research, a group of influential conservatives have drafted a broad "bioethics agenda" for President Bush's second term and have begun the delicate task of building a political coalition to support it.

The loose-knit group of about a dozen people -- largely spearheaded by Leon R. Kass, chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, and Eric Cohen, editor of the New Atlantis, a conservative journal of technology and society -- have been meeting since December. Their goal, according to a document circulating among members and others, is to devise "a bold and plausible 'offensive' bioethics agenda" to replace a congressional strategy that has been "too narrowly focused and insufficiently ambitious."

"We have today an administration and a Congress as friendly to human life and human dignity as we are likely to have for many years to come," reads the document, which was obtained by The Washington Post. "It would be tragic if we failed to take advantage of this rare opportunity to enact significant bans on some of the most egregious biotechnical practices."

Yet the effort to galvanize Congress has already run into a major roadblock -- and not from scientists, patient advocacy groups or the biotechnology industry. In an unusual instance of open divisiveness among Bush's conservative base, the nascent agenda is under attack by a variety of opponents of embryo research, including Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who led failed efforts in the past four years to pass legislation that would ban the cloning of babies and human embryos for research.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15569-2005Mar7.html?nav=rss_politics

[oneighty]

1. Friendly to human life and human dignity?

How can that be?

180

[trotsky]

2. If you're white, or a fetus.

Got it?

[AnnInLa]

3. If you're a white male with $$$.......n/t

[trotsky]

5. Oops, forgot that qualification!

Yes, because obviously god favors you enough to have made you white, male, and rich. Why *shouldn't* we base our national priorities around your comfort?

[Warpy]

4. If you're white and being kept "alive" by machines

against your family's wishes, or if you're an unwanted fetus.

Otherwise, they don't give a damn. You're on your own.

And they'll NEVER let you die an easy death! No! Maximum intervention! Maximum DEBT! Make sure your heirs are destitute! Grab it all!

[oneighty]

6. Iraqis are white.

Pregnant women are killed. Children are killed.

Being white does not help them any.

Does it?

180

[trotsky]

7. One more qualification: Christian.

Although I'm pretty sure *'s base would not think of Iraqis as being white.

[oneighty]

8. Yes. Christian

Of course they do not see Iraqis as being white (Caucasian). But they are they really really are white people.

And they were living in cities and inventing the sciences, mathematics, art, writing and philosophies long before the Christ appeared.

Surely God's hand was guiding them?

180

[rodeodance]

9. group has no name!!

......Kass emphasized yesterday that his effort to craft a new legislative agenda on cloning, stem cells and related issues was independent of his role as chairman of Bush's bioethics council and that no federal resources have been used by the group, which he said has no name.

[seafan]

10. "as friendly to human life and dignity as we are likely to have...."

"We have today an administration and a Congress as friendly to human life and human dignity as we are likely to have for many years to come," reads the document...


Actually a despairingly chilling statement.

[DBoon]

11. Will they ban IVF?

I mean, many Republicans use this technique. A ban would annoy many of their constituents.

Or are they only going to ban techniques that hurt poor people and pointy-headed scientists?