As for the "Sambo" comment, I refer you to
Palin Rumors | Explorations Its Number 65
This one is pretty typical of the left -when all else fails, claim the opponent used a racial slur of some kind. Considering the fact that I think the left is far more racist than the right, its more likely that someone like Hillary would use it. However, since Palin married a Yup'ik and is also a very skilled politician highly unlikely to use any kind of racial slur and watch her career go down the toilet as a result -this one is obviously a smear of desperation.
Paling does NOT oppose stem cell research -she opposes only EMBRYONIC stem cell research. Maybe this is a real shocker to you -but lots of people believe its wrong to create a new human life only in order to kill it, harvest it like a crop -all so another but older human life can benefit. It is in fact a form of cannibalism. There are many bio-ethicists who oppose embryonic stem cell research too.
However there is NO opposition to other lines of stem cell research. Not just adult and cord blood stem cell research, but no opposition to any research into any of the alternative procedures that can avoid the creation of a new life entirely but result in the same undifferentiated stem cells that is being sought in embryos. If its possible to get the exact same thing desired from a living human embryo without one -then as a society don't you think we are morally obligated to avoid the creation and destruction of human life?
One of four alternative procedures under research is called Altered Nuclear Transfer. A human egg has its nucleus removed -with only half the necessary DNA to create a new life, it is not a human life. The empty cell is then treated and the nucleus of an adult body cell is inserted. The treatment not only stimulates cell reproduction, it is incapable of becoming an embryo. It only forms disconnected, undifferentiated cells called "pleuripotent stem cells" which are the functional equivalent of embryonic stem cells. All the alternative procedures in research are looking to develop the functional equivalent of embryonic stem cells without the need to create and destroy a human embryo which many people find morally repugnant.
But embryonic stem cell research is not the most promising line of research anyway. No one is benefitting from embryonic stem cell research because they can't get rid of the inherent problems by using embryonic stem cells -including tumor formation, unstable gene expression and inability to stimulate the cells to form the desired type of tissue. (A religious person might suggest that perhaps God intended no benefit to humans by creating, and then cannibalizing a human life.)
The claim that embryonic stem cell research has "great" potential to cure all sorts of disease is pure hype. No line of stem cell research will EVER cure Alzheimer's because it is believed to probably involve aberrations in more than just one cell type, none of which are even known much less understood - plus the fact that the disease kills brain cells. Sticking embryonic stem cells into someone's brain is far more likely to produce a tumor than a cure. Even honest researchers in favor of embryonic stem cell research admit that claims it has potential to treat Alzheimer's are just not true and only used by the dishonest hoping it will help build demand for government funding.
Proponents who insist on government funding are often not aware of the fact that this is the ONLY line of stem cell research even looking to government for funding. Because it can't attract private funding. And is the ONLY line of stem cell research that can't because this line is the least promising. Other lines of research have already produced benefit, already in use in human trials for many diseases and conditions right now -like Parkinson's disease, leukemia, autoimmune disease, stroke, anemia, several kinds of cancer, immunodeficiency, corneal damage, blood and liver diseases, heart attack, and diabetes. The most optimistic outlook for when embryonic stem cell research might actually benefit a person -is another couple of decades -if then.
Private investors do their own research in order to put their money in investments with the most promise, not the least. So maybe you can explain for us all that if private investors won't fund embryonic stem cell research because they consider it as a loser investment - why you think taxpayers should be soaked for the bill -but NOT funding the lines of research that are already benefitting people and most likely to find even more benefit?
And SO WHAT that Palin opposes gay marriage? So does the vast majority in this country in case you didn't notice. Want to ram it down their throats against their will anyway? If so, then you do not want a representative democracy. You want tyranny. Most people have no problem allowing gay partners to share in the different financial benefits married couples may receive. But the definition of the word "marriage" is already taken and the notion that we must now redefine the word to mean "any two people who want to shack up" is ludicrous.
