Sunday, October 22, 2006

Painful campaign ad

Are you sick of scientific progress being held hostage by the Evangelist in Chief, yet?

9 comments:

Paul said...

Yes, I do disagree with him on this issue. To give him credit, though - a person takes an ethical position and sticks with it, that's a bit unusual in politics. I wonder if Rove and company have ever polled how much support this position has cost them among their base?

If memory serves me, first bans on federal were approved by Congress in 1995 - let's see, who was President then? Interesting, too, Senator Hutchinson from the Pres's state of Texas has called for loosening up on this. Also from the start - opposed to President's position is Senator Hatch - Republican of Utah - a devout Mormon. I read one interview at the start of this where he said he contacted his Church's leaders and they told him to do what he thought was right. So much for lockstep direction -

But what really gets me is, as I understand it, it's a ban on use of federal funds and restricts research to stem cell lines in existence as of a certain dates. Where are all the progressive philanthropists and foundations who could make up the NIH funding cuts? Some have come forward - look at the Harvard advances - but, hey, George Soros fans, are you listening? Maybe he could pull some of his tax-sheltered money from the Caymans and put his money to something other than funding progressive political causes? Michael Moore - you're a well-off critic with contacts - maybe you could do some quiet good.... oh, never mind.

Paul said...

Oh, and I don't know what Nancy Reagan's thoughts were on this some years back, but her situation does illustrate when you take an issue from the theoretical world and into the personal, that opinions can rapidly change.

Doug said...

Banning stem cell research isn't an "ethical issue."

It's a BS ploy to make the hard right religious nuts feel that they have an anti-abortion President when the stem cells are malingering, frozen genetic leftovers from fertility clinics which would just be thrown in the trash.

However, to hear Bush say it, he's destroying Abortion as an evil by preventing Stem Cell research.

Bull. Pucky. Put that in a pipe and smoke it.

Paul said...

Mr. Bell - not on this issue - but watched the last episode of "Studio 60" (same writers, some of same actors from West Wing) - and I looked at my wife and said "wow - their writers must be Candorville fans." Same biting insights, portrayal of some attitudes - maybe that's why I like the show.

Comment on this issue - Limbaugh, I think, really stepped in it this time. Re. Mr. Fox - if he's going to be cited as one who could possibly benefit from a cure for his disease, I'd prefer to see the effects of the disease (which is what he showed us) - not symptoms masked by medication (the disease still progresses). People could see him medicated and say "what's the big deal?" That's superficial, I know, but given how many issues are handled...

Doug said...

The hardcore, Pro-Life right also tried to demonize Christopher Reeve in that way - that he could benefit from the results of stem cell research.

WELL DUH!

He could then walk and breathe like every one of those inbred hair-shirt wearing fanatics. Is it too much to ask to be a whole, operating human being again? For our soldiers who have been crippled and paralyzed in combat defending out country to have fully repaired spines to pay off our debt to their sacrifice? Plus - it's not even abortions that harvest these stem cells. Yeesh.

(Note: I'm against abortion, but I cannot condone making it illegal because of the damage done to teenaged girls who are either victims of predatory males or who simply make mistakes. Adult women, though, should know better than to use it as some form of birth control.)

Tiffany said...

I'm in agreement with both Paul and Doug. I think there's an overwhelming consensus in this country, from the left to the right, that embryonic stem cell research should be allowed to go on unencumbered by religious objections.

As Darrin's said in Candorville a number of times, these embryos are going to be trashed anyway, so why not have their destruction MEAN something? While people are bickering over it and the President and his few Congressional supporters on this issue use it to score points with evangelicals, people like Reeve and Fox are suffering and dying.

It's just sick.

I don't even want to get started on Limbaugh. That man isn't even worth these two sentences.

Paul said...

Hello, Tiffany -
If you have a few really good friends who are on the opposite end of the embryonic stem cell issue - maybe sometimes (thinking of Doug's and your last comments) when they say - the sacrifice of our soldiers should mean something - you could say , yeah, just like those embryos - their existence should mean something, like hope for life instead of getting thrown in the trash -

On second thought, maybe you shouldn't do that. Me, on the other hand...

Doug said...

Well, the embryos' existence, if they were used to improve lives, would mean something. Otherwise, they're nothing more important than what is thrown out on a tampon - which is the discarded, unfertilized egg and womb liner of a normally functioning woman.

The embryos are unformed blastocysts. The very building blocks of what COULD potentially form a humanoid - if we happened to plug it into a fully operating womb and waited a long time.

David said...

The sad thing is, all of stem research was blocked even though the umbilical cord could be used instead of the embryo: HEAR THAT MR. BUSH?!?!