Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Humility regarding what man does. Faith in what God does. That means skepticism about politicians' plans to run health care.
Click to Print
Include Comments
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘fertilized’ is”
In an interview with CNN’s Sanjay Gupta, former President Bill Clinton went on and on and on defending President Obama’s reversal on the ban of federally funded embryonic stem cell research by saying that it was morally acceptable to use embryos in research as long as they are not fertilized. Of course, what makes an egg an embryo is fertilization. Even more disturbing is that the man interviewing Clinton and repeatedly not correcting him almost became our surgeon general.
When Clinton discovers that embryos are fertilized, will he then come out against Obama’s position on the issue?
HT: Jill Stanek
Topic: Issues, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top29 Comments to ““It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘fertilized’ is””
I, too, caught the error when I heard the interview and thought it odd that the interviewer didn’t point out what makes an embryo an embryo. Practicing good manners? Political correctness? Or maybe, the reporter doesn’t know what an embryo is either.
One thing you can bet on is that if someone other than Bill Clinton would’ve said it, the media would’ve jumped all over it (remember the spelling of “potato”?).
Report comment to moderator
Tell us again how Bill Clinton is so smart.
Report comment to moderator
1. How many in the media know the difference?
Report comment to moderator
Especially because it was the foundation of his argument about “moral acceptability” it seems unbelievable that no one pointed it out right then or immediately after the interview. It was a ridiculous and obvious error. So you’re probably right, Deet, about why the interviewer didn’t point it out …it would have been too embarrassing for both of them, and it’s bad manners to embarrass a guest.
Report comment to moderator
But he’s cool and can play the saxophone.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, that’s right, I forgot.
Know what, KBells? We’re both kind of joking, but I suspect there’s truth in what you said and it’s not a comforting truth!
Report comment to moderator
I agree. It is not at all comforting to realize how some people decide who they want running the country.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe Obama needs to be clued in as well so he can reverse policy.
Mike
Report comment to moderator
Clinton is (likely) referring to the distinction between embryos created by the process of fertilization (i.e. the fusion of a sperm and egg) and embryos created by other processes, like Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (which uses the nucleus of another cell artificially introduced into the denucleated egg.) This is an important distinction that many scientists make, and even a handful of evangelicals like Francis Collins are okay with SCNT being used to create embryos (because it is not the fusion of a sperm and egg.) I don’t entirely agree with this, but this distinction is real and it has been argued about for a number of years.
It is entirely possible that he isn’t thinking about this at all, but it’s quite likely.
Don’t be so quick to congratulate yourself for being so smart…
Report comment to moderator
Remember, the guy interviewing him isn’t a reporter. He’s a medical doctor who nearly became our surgeon general. He knows the definition of an embryo and whether it’s fertilized.
MLTW,
Then why wouldn’t Clinton make sure we knew the difference, too? Wouldn’t it win a few hearts and minds?
Report comment to moderator
Maybe Clinton means implantation.
Report comment to moderator
From the wiki article: “Presently, no human stem cell lines have been derived from SCNT research.”
So are we beating a dead horse?
Report comment to moderator
After re-watching the video, it seems more likely that he means implantation. However, it might still be possible that he’s the fertilization/not-fertilization thing that I mentioned earlier.
Report comment to moderator
Either way, it seems clarification is in order, and the reporter should have followed up….
Report comment to moderator
I think the reporter did just fine. He let Clinton say what he wanted without any help. If he had helped Clinton by gently correcting him some would have been all over him for his “biased” reporting.
Reporters let Bush misspeak all the time. Clinton just got treated the same. Turn about is fair play.
Report comment to moderator
Gupta is still not a reporter–he’s a medical doctor.
Report comment to moderator
And Bill Clinton is a lawyer and a lefty who is out to redefine another word. He wants people to believe what he said — he is intentionally trying to mislead. Say it enough times and ignorant people will use his definition rather than the correct one.
Report comment to moderator
From the title
“Fertilized” or fertilizer.
(I misread it the first time, or did I?)
Report comment to moderator
So are we beating a dead horse?
Since we’re still talking about Bill Clinton nine years after his presidency ended, I’d say yes.
Report comment to moderator
19. If Bush 41 made a mistake like this y’all would be all over it.
Report comment to moderator
He clearly is using the word “fertilization” to mean the larger qualified term in vitro fertilization.
Strictly Incorrect? Yes …
Good policy otherwise? Probably not that either – even giving the IVF benefit of the doubt, his answer was a bunch of policitized crap intended to placate conservatives.
Report comment to moderator
#21 Spinoza
“…his answer was a bunch of policitized crap intended to placate conservatives.”
Upon reflection, I think his comments are aimed at the undecided, the “moderates.”
I know I am looking to deconstruct Clinton’s words but who trained us in this useless enterprise?
Report comment to moderator
Of “deconstruction” you mean?
Deconstruction is not useless – especially when verbal and ideological nonsense routinely hold large segments of the American public in rapt sycophantic obeisance to cultic dogma.
Report comment to moderator
What’s the difference between an embryo intended for in vitro placement and one slated for research?
NOTHING!
Report comment to moderator
If he was talking about SCNT, then he was advocating cloning, which most people find mor taboo than embryonic stem cell therapy.
Although I completely abhor destroying embryos (in the traditional sense of the word), I think that the obvious consequences of human cloning would be worse.
Report comment to moderator
Clinton definitely was talking about fertilization, not SCNT, because he stated several times that he wouldn’t support using an embryo that had any chance of becoming a baby.
This screams scientific stupidity on an extremely basic level! Conservatives are repeatedly excoriated for their supposed lack of scientific knowledge, but here’s a liberal Rhodes Scholar who doesn’t know that embryos are fertilized and fully capable of becoming babies when implanted! Why else would we care about the use of embryos for stem cell research? And he’s being interviewed as a political/legal expert, for his opinion on the subject.
Yes, I agree Dr. Gupta comes off as incredibly scientifically illiterate, or at least as willing to present a seriously flawed argument as a good opinion, without any correcting comment, all for the sake of higher ratings on his show.
Report comment to moderator
If I didn’t like Clinton I might just let him blather on without helping him with his vocabulary. Maybe in Indian society, one does not correct one’s betters and Clinton is an ex-President. Dr. Gupta might have been being polite.
Or he might not have caught the mistake.
Report comment to moderator
Beth: How do you figure that his letting Clinton’s apparent error pass would lead to higher ratings? The people who are watching are already watching and those who are not are not going to somehow know that they should turn it on.
Report comment to moderator
Steve,
My assumption is that the interview was taped ahead of time and they decided to use it because it had Bill Clinton giving his opinion even though it is chock full of scientific errors. Also, my guess is that Dr. Gupta made no attempt to correct his egregious errors in the interview in order to not embarass Clinton and to ensure that Clinton will give him another interview in the future.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!