My thoughts on…Bush’s stem cell veto
On Wednesday, President Bush vetoed a bill to fund stem cell research. The veto was the first of his presidency, and would set back stem cell research several years. Bush cited morality as the grounds for his decision. According to polls, most Americans disagree with him. Great, another reason for the Americans to dislike him. I swear, Stalin gets more love than Bush. This has re-ignited the issue of stem cell research. Its proponents argue that it has the potential to save millions from several life threatening diseases. Its most famous proponents are the late Christopher Reeve and Micheal J. Fox. Some of them only care if America beats other countries in stem cell research. Real unselfish guys. Opponents say that because stem cells are extracted from embryos, which are destroyed in the process, it’s really an act of murder. This also has the potential to re-ignite the abortion debate, as to what is the proper definition of “life.”
People are very vocal about this issue, and the voices grow louder and louder each day. Some say Bush is doing this to pander to the Christian right. Some say Bush should be more concerned with oil prices and the war in Iraq, being fought by fully grown embryos. And others think this is typical Bush stupidity. But in his defense, he does support adult stem cell research. I’m a pro-lifer, but I disagree with Bush’s veto. Abortion is wrong, as there are more humane alternatives such as adoption. But in today’s throwaway society, who cares? It’s an inconvenience, so get rid of it. Then justify your action by not calling it life. Sorry, had to get that off my chest. If the foetuses are going to be discarded, then why not use them to save a few lives? Stem cell research as the potential to be one of the greatest medical breakthroughs since penicillin, and must be pursued. But at what cost? I guess it all comes down to whether or not you think one life for another is a fair trade.
Go for the stem cell research.The potential gains are worth it as far as am concerned
It is a very controversial debate, even more, if who takes the decision is an idiotic-half-neuroned-hardcore-evangelical-fundamentalist…
I don’t know much about the science behind stem cell. Are the cells harvested from aborted babies only? Can they come from miscarried/stillbirth babies? Are we able to grow human cells and then harvest them? It is an ethical quandry and many quetions need to be answered. Will women with “good” genes be paid to become pregnant in order to abort and harvest those cells?
As much as I want this research to move forward, I have so many questions and no answers to be found much less from an idiotic president and government.
As long as we’ve Neo-cons in office, and spineless democrats in congress, we’ll never move forward scientifically or technologically - in fact, I fear we’ll move in reverse, letting beliefs, fear and superstitious nationalism become the country’s mass emotion.
got the same questions as maritza on stem cell. on abortion i’ve gotta disagree (what is the opposite of a pro-lifer? a murderer?). There are clear cases were abortion is necessary (congentital defect, rape amongst others).
good post and food for thought.
This is an automated reply for Leon:
Your personality-assessment blurb you requested, simply by participating, is now complete. View at Balloon
this is such a sticky issue…i wish my opinion on the issue was stronger one way or the other…
i wonder if in the mid-term elections if the stem-cell debate will play a significant role in any of the elections.
–RC of strangeculture.blogspot.com