...Pro-stem cell president and a pro-stem cell Congress

[Superlative]

President Bush hasn't seen the last of legislation to allow federal funding for new embryonic stem cell research.

Supporters are answering his veto with an effort Thursday to add a stem cell research provision to a Senate appropriations bill. The addition would allow taxpayer dollars to be used for new lines of embryonic stem cells..........

Democratic congressional leaders are also likely to bring back the bill that Bush vetoed. They are expected to try to override the veto -- although neither chamber has the two-thirds majority to succeed -- or just give the issue more air time.

........."This will be an election issue in 2008 not just in the House, not just in the Senate, but in the presidential election," said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, one of the House's chief sponsors of the bill Bush vetoed. "We ... intend to continue bringing this up until we have a pro-stem cell president and a pro-stem cell Congress."

...............Democrats dismissed Bush's veto as a moral affront to hundreds of thousands of Americans who have diseases that might someday be treated or cured by research into the all-purpose lines derived from embryonic stem cells. Democrats said his executive order was a meaningless gesture meant to trick people into thinking he had advanced stem cell research.

Public opinion polls show strong support for the research.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/21/stem.cells.ap/index.html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Just think, using this line of logic then abortion has ensured that great scientists and leaders have been snuffed out in the womb. With MILLIONS of potential humans eliminated the odds are some of them could have do some GREAT thngs for mankind in all walks of life.

The liberals have ignored the millions of Americans that are opposed to abortion for a VERY long time now. And in fact if a conservative made a statement like the one above as follows...WE intend to keep bringing this up until we have a Pro Life President and a PRO life Congress... the left would be howling mad.

As proof one only need look to the democrats attempts to ensure any nominee to the Supreme Court agrees that Roe VS Wade NEVER be overturned.

 

[Diuretic]

I don't think abortion has a lot to do with this.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't think abortion has a lot to do with this.

You would be wrong. Currently the main source of stem cells that science thinks work the best come from , guess where?

Perhaps you should do a little research on WHY religious groups are opposed to most stem cell research. It is NOT because religion and science do not work well together.

 

[Diuretic]

They're from embryos.

Why are religious groups opposed? And let me say if they are opposed then that's fine, they're entitled to their views. But society is entitled to ignore them.

I have to ask myself, why is government influenced by religious views though?

Now before this turns into a 'shut up foreigner this is an American policy issue" may I say in my defence that research in the US is extremely important for the rest of the scientific world and while I make a point to stay out of US domestic issues (eg legal/illegal immigration) because they're none of my business, this one affects everyone, especially those, like me, that would benefit from effective research in this area.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A quick and easy discussion.... check out section 6 of this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell

And then get back to me on how abortion has nothing to do with the research.

 

[taimie]

Please do a search for:

Open Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research - The Petition Site & Sign!!!!

Less than 3,000 needed still to reach goal.

Sorry this site will not let me post direct link yet


Thank You!
Taimie

 

[plt42]

Just think, using this line of logic then abortion has ensured that great scientists and leaders have been snuffed out in the womb.

In that line of thinking, wouldn't you have to assume the position of "embryonic predestination"? Is this another discussion of nature vs. nurture?

Just curious.

 

[eots]

President Bush hasn't seen the last of legislation to allow federal funding for new embryonic stem cell research.

Supporters are answering his veto with an effort Thursday to add a stem cell research provision to a Senate appropriations bill. The addition would allow taxpayer dollars to be used for new lines of embryonic stem cells..........

Democratic congressional leaders are also likely to bring back the bill that Bush vetoed. They are expected to try to override the veto -- although neither chamber has the two-thirds majority to succeed -- or just give the issue more air time.

........."This will be an election issue in 2008 not just in the House, not just in the Senate, but in the presidential election," said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, one of the House's chief sponsors of the bill Bush vetoed. "We ... intend to continue bringing this up until we have a pro-stem cell president and a pro-stem cell Congress."

...............Democrats dismissed Bush's veto as a moral affront to hundreds of thousands of Americans who have diseases that might someday be treated or cured by research into the all-purpose lines derived from embryonic stem cells. Democrats said his executive order was a meaningless gesture meant to trick people into thinking he had advanced stem cell research.

Public opinion polls show strong support for the research.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/21/stem.cells.ap/index.html

abortion is murder

 

[editec]

I can certainly understand why anyone opposed to abortion on religious or moral principles objects to embryonic stem cell research.

The potential that abortion material becomes something of great value that actually encourages abortions for profit is obviously there.

STill abortions are happening, anyway, so the argument that just throwing away that material is just wasted otherwise can be a powerful argument in its defence, too.

I'll have to ponder this debate a while.

I am of the opinion that should embryonic material become truly valuable as a clinical tool to save people or cure them, then it WILL cause some people to encourage abortions for profit.

Off hand I'd say that the probability (under the above circumstances, at least) of aboreted fetuses not becoming a coveted item is practically nil, IF, for example, that material can be used to make cripples whole again, or to save lives of people who might benefit.

This IS a very difficult issue to resolve if you are, as I am, not opposed to abortions based on the principle that every woman has the right to decide for herself whether to bring a human into existence.