Posted on 07/19/2006 11:14:14 AM PDT by Lunatic Fringe
Suppose adult stem cells have that potential, but we don't know how to harness it yet?
Not at all.
The truly chilling part is that you can't see the connection, and your blindness is so bad that you want the government funding genuinely-evil Mengelian efforts.
What's your connection to that funding? Looking forward to a juicy grant?
You have chosen a perfect Freep name. You are a "lunatic" if you think President Bush was grandstanding the conservative right. Bush has been pro-life since he ran for President. This embryonic stem cell issue is an issue of whether or not we as a people are going to condone and support the killing of beginning human life. Even you, "lunatic" were once a human embryonic stem cell.
Can you point to any evidence (not merely conjecture) that embryonic stem cells would be better suited for this research than adult or spinal cells from those who can give consent, and can survive the procedure?
Also, didn't this bill simply say that federal money would not be used on it, and that private funding of such research is still allowed? If so, then those with such injuries are not in any worse position at all.
". . . what do you think of the argument that if we should not be allowed to destroy embryos to research for cures, why should couple be able to make them through in-vitro when they cannot conceive?"
I find it all very troubling and morally wrong, but I am increasingly convinced that government cannot fill an ethical/moral vacuum.
In the case of today's veto, the President refused to let government (and our tax dollars) support something that he, and many Americans, find reprehensible.
However, in the personal lives of individual Americans, I don't know that government can dictate moral choices (sexuality, promiscuity, lifestyle, perhaps even abortion)or enforce laws designed to control them.
Rather, society and its pressures have always been the strongest and most effective force in pressuring its members to live ethically and morally.
That, of course, is where we have failed. We have allowed the anything-goes, me-first, personal happiness crowd to dominate our culture.
The question is when and whether good, God-fearing Americans can reclaim the attention and admiration of a society going bad.
Nothing like using DU terms on FR.
P.S.: A zygote is not even a fetus, much less a human being.
So tell me, then, how you managed to bypass the zygote stage and be born human. Your way is the way of diminished humanity. Nothing to be proud of.
Ill correct that for you: ...to push the point of view of the pro-life base of the Republican Party."
Mr President, where was your veto pen when it came to CFR, bloated budgets, and dozens of other bad bills????
I do agree with you on your second point, that he should have vetoed early and often.
Why don't we talk sometime when your brain is in control of your feelings?
Then you might make some sense.
Please, we have asked you fundy Bible thumpers to stop shoving your religion down our throats on this thread.
Where'd you get that quote from anyway ... Pat Robertson?
(/sarc)
How are dead cells effective? I must be missing something. I understand the idea of an embryo, and I understand that it is a life. But, it seems that to grow them they must be alive. Do they use cells from just aborted babies, or do they use other sources for this material.
Is this different from Jesus spitting into the dirt, and using the mud to help heal a blind man? Of course, iI am not likening the action to Divinity!
What you call "spare parts" were intended to save human lives.
If I were President, would I have vetoed this bill? You bet: there is no section in the Constitution that empowers the Federal Government to fund medical research. But I would have vetoed many other bills for the same reason--such as the one that forbids Americans to criticize their government--not only the one that would have saved lives, albeit with the wrong source of funding.
I thought so.
I do no such thing. This kind of farming of humans is extraordinarily immoral.
*grin*
In fact, the President's voting constituency is behind him.
The "70%" statistic is only in those polls that first fraudulently "educate" that embryonic stem cells are the "best hope" according to the "experts."
More information:
http://www.eppc.org/programs/bioethics/publications/programID.35,pubID.2665/pub_detail.asp
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjliM2MwZTU1MzI5NTc2ZWFhNTE1NmMwNzNhZDA3MGM=
You are probably right. Interferon comes to mind. The difficulty is that when doing research, it's tough to tell when your research finds is successful in finding a solution. Then you can add the usual 10-12 years for FDA approval.
(I worked with quite a few pharmaceutical companies like Glaxo and Wyeth.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.