|
|
What do you guys think about this?
I support President Bush, but I think this is a bad call. Personally, I'm in favor of stem cell research. I see the point about destroying embryos, but the embryos are currently being thrown away anyway. Why not study them instead of discard them...
I'm with you stray. Why throw them out if they could possibly help somebody with a spinal cord injury walk again someday. I'm undecided on "fetus farming" at this point until it is proven that stem cell research is a very safe and viable means to help people and improve their quality of life.
“Towie Barclay of the Glen, Happy to the maids, But never to the men.”
IMHO, Bad call indeed.
It's a tough issue. My sister-in-law was in an accident at 3 and she's suffered a spinal cord injury that paralyzed her from the armpits down. I think the problem is the potential for fetus farming. The two groups on this issue need to get together to insure that we don't refuse to use cells on an ethical principle if the cells are going to be thown away. Like I said, it's a tough issue that could seriously use some common sense...too bad the decision has to come from Washington. Common sense isn't exactly in abundance up there.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
I think he did the right thing. However, I'm not real strong on this issue.
But here's my issue... I've long said that stem cell research is on the clock. They have made huge promises about what can be done with stem cell research. Popular Science made projections about letting the blind see and the lame walk as early as this year or the next.
since that time, we have found out that this idea was very undeveloped. President Bush's original stance was that he would give a certain number of stem cell lines which could be used to determine the possibilities of stem cell research. We found that stem cells can be harvested from a variety of sources. May I also introduce that the most significant advancement of organ growing was not with stem cell research, but through growing from cells from that organ. In fact, this research is better since it reduces the chances of the body rejecting the organ.
Bottom line, President Bush said this with his veto...
He went against his base to provide scientists the opportunity to pursue this research. He paid a price to allow it. In the years since then, he has gotten jack squat. To quote him: "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." To quote Jerry McGuire: "Show me the money."
I don't believe federal dollar one should be spent on such research. I'm in favor of the veto. Yes, there are hard issues here and I don't have someone waiting for life saving or improvement because of this research, but I don't believe we can/should do whatever we want to get the results we want. I gas I don't believe pragmatism is always ok. The ends do not always justify the means. If we devalue life we are devaluing life - period. I think that's one of the problems with some of these Muslim terrorists - they just don't value life. So much of life is made up of slow changes in tolerance for things - its a very slippery slope.Originally Posted by StrayDawg
What do I think about this? Just another example of why our President is an idiot. But of course, that is just my opinion.
I think this has been dicussed before, but if stem cell research was so promising, why hasnt a private firm taken up research on it? Is it illegal?
There are many private firms working on stem cell research at this time. The most positive research has to be from John Hopkins, however, as they have used stem cells to help give lab rats back mobility (albeit limited). I'll provide a link in my next post that provides some info. on stem cell research and it's benefits/drawbacks.
“Towie Barclay of the Glen, Happy to the maids, But never to the men.”
“Towie Barclay of the Glen, Happy to the maids, But never to the men.”
So, then why does the federal government need to get involved in this? Number one, they will not be as efficient as private labs because private labs are wanting to earn a buck on it. Number 2, private labs probably have the resources to get the better scientists. So, I will ask again, why do taxpayers need to fund this, if it is already being funded elsewhere by people with plenty of motivation to do so?
DB-I thought you werent in to government waste.
I agree on the need for ethics oversight by govt. but still think the benefits of future stem cell research may be too great to snub it now. As far as spending govt. dollars on research I believe that private firms should take the initiative as most great discoveries in medicine happened without huge govt. spending. The financial benefits from creating one wonder cure for a phar. co. is all they need to spur research.
“Towie Barclay of the Glen, Happy to the maids, But never to the men.”
Yep. This was all about funding when the funding is there anyway.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...607200322/1008
I am. This isn't govt. waste. Reasonable spending for the good of mankind with the possiblity of creating medical discoveries that could expand our economy along with lessening the burden of high medical insurance, is always good spending. One of the better bills that Clinton signed into law was the Americans with Disabilities Act. This was a humane bill that created jobs throughout the economic sector and in every community in the US and wasn't some 250 million dollar bridge to nowhere in Alaska where only a few contractors will benefit.
Bush needs to learn to reign in on his constituents pork spending habits instead of trying to appease the too far to the right wing evangelical vote.
Why go buy a 12 pack when someone is supplying the keg for free? If private firms are diong the job, why should the government waste time and money? Because that is what they would be doing. Marketdawg already told us of all of the private firms that are taking the risks for the big reward. Why should the the government buy the cow when they can get the milk for free? Better milk at that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
