Ok, this is a tough one to sort out. As would be expected there are tons of sites out there full of all sorts of hyperbole, which makes for interesting reading, but not much in the way of facts. I did find this statement on http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem1.htm, (which was one of the least biased sites I could find) :
Stem cell research in government labs is currently suspended, But if it was to be re-authorized, then researchers could remove some of these embryos from liquid nitrogen storage, thaw them out, and allow them to grow to the blastocyst stage.
So it looks like the frozen embryos are still viable, which means the president isn’t waivering from his traditional position of being very pro life.
Was that supposed to be joke based on the fact that some people conflate embryonic stem cell research with the non-embryonic kind? Because Bush has clearly said he’d veto a bill which allocated funds for the former.
This runs counterproductive to a large part of his base. Future large scale industries are possible in the future. Other countries are enjoying chief stumblebum and his childish beliefs. They are hard at work attacking the problems while we fight through his superior standards.
An expert in stem cell research was on the Cobert report. He said you could not see the stem cells in question. They are microscopic. They are not republican voters.
It is more pandering to the base ,but with 66% of the people for research it seems his calculus is off. Unless the % of voters in the third is huge.
Because our government is secular in nature. Religion should only be governing his personal actions. If he can’t separate the two, he shouldn’t be be in government.
That is ridiculous. Many liberals hold liberal ideas due to their religious convictions…should they ignore these convictions when in government? My religion teaches that we should feed & clothe the poor…I have been taught all my life, in Church, that it is the right thing to do. If I became president, and governed according to that principle, would that be wrong just because I was taught it by my religion?
Feeding and clothing the poor and being kind is not a religious concept, regardless of who taught it to you. It’s humanitarian. Restricting stem cell research based on a blind interpretation of what god wants and doesn’t want is patently religious and is restricting another person’s welfare.
My understanding is that is exactly their plan. The Pubbies who vote against the real stem cell bill can run ads in the fall all about how they support stem cell research, because they supported the non-embryonic bill. I guess they feel the voters will be too dumb to know the difference.
As you your point, Kalhoun, MY point was that if something is the right thing to do, then it doesn’t matter if it’s a religious conviction or anything else. Any president who has a moral conviction, and was elected by the people with full disclosure that this was his or her position, is obligated to consider that moral position when making decisions.
I wish it were a joke. Republicans have floated a look-alike stem cell bill that “authorizes” stem cell research that is already authorized, without funding embryonic stem cell research. The only reasonable conclusion is that they need to give the President something he can vote for, and they can all say, “Look, we support stem cell research”. Do you see any other reason for this legislation, or is just a coincidence that it came up at the same time as the embryonic stem cell funding bill?
It may not say it in words, but provisions in defense of the concept of secular government, i.e., ensuring government doesn’t “establish” a church by enforcing religious doctrines, are there. I’m not going to nitpick the constitution with you, but most people would say that outlawing stem cell research based on religious beliefs is an attempt to establish christianity in our government. Good deal for some christians. For the rest of us, not so much. This law would force his religious beliefs on non-christians. How could it possibly be interpreted any other way?
No, that’s not the only “reasonable” conclusion. Look, I’m happy to call out “partisan pandering” on either side when I see it, but I’m not seeing it here. I think they’d be just as likely to confuse religious people who are against embryonic stem cell research as they would be to confuse those who are not opposed to it.
[quoet=Kalhoun]It may not say it in words, but provisions in defense of the concept of secular government, i.e., ensuring government doesn’t “establish” a church by enforcing religious doctrines, are there. I’m not going to nitpick the constitution with you, but most people would say that outlawing stem cell research based on religious beliefs is an attempt to establish christianity in our government. Good deal for some christians. For the rest of us, not so much. This law would force his religious beliefs on non-christians.
[/quote]
“I’m not going to nitpick the constitution with you”, but let me nitpick the constution with you… And I think you’re wrong about how “most people” would interpret this. “Most people” are perfectly fine with having religion be one of the factors which informs their politicians on issues. You might be right about “most people who post on this MB”, but not about most Americans.
Firstly, Bush is not proposing to outlaw embryonic stem cell research. Secondly, everything can be interpretted in more than one way if you’re not predisposed only to believe one thing in the first place.
How do you figure limits on stem cell research to be “the right thing to do” from a humanitarian standpoint? We’ve already established that embryos can be legally discarded, why would he put stipulations on specific embryos, when those embryos are needed to perform the much-needed research, and are going to be discarded anyway? What kind of morals would keep a person from doing the right thing for the benefit of so many people?
This isn’t about what’s legal or not legal, it’s about where federal funds will be applied. He isn’t stopping anyone in the private sector from doing this research, nor is he prohibitting the states from doing it (as CA is already doing).
It authorizes no new research, it creates no new funding. If this is not purely partisan pandering in an attempt to confuse the largest part of the electorate (those for embryonic stem cell research as opposed to against it), what in your opinion, does it accomplish?
No, he’s not directly prohibiting anyone from doing research, but the ban on federal funding does seem to apply a rather chilling effect on the field overall. Arnold Kriegstein, the head of the Institute of Regeneration Medicine at UCSF, noted that scientists who receive NIH grants are very leery of doing any research that might tangentially apply to stem cell research, lest their funding get yanked. Young scientists view it as an unstable field with limited prospects, and decide to go into other areas where they think they are likelier to be funded. Others go to other countries to do their research because there’s less red tape, thus creating a “brain drain”.*
Heard on an NPR interview yesterday morning… maybe “Morning Edition”?
Come on, John, did you just come from the cabbage patch or something? The Murky News describes the other bills:
What conceivable purpose would there be for a bill encouraging adult stem cell research (not exactly a controversial position) except to give conservatives cover? I’m sure the campaign literature directed to the religious right will emphasize how they voted against fetus killing. Anyhow, that group is not at risk for them - it is the moderates who support stem cell research.
As for outlawing it - do you really doubt they’d introduce a bill outlawing embryonic stem cell research if it had a chance of passage? In any case, the lines that Bush approved are getting more and more difficult to use, so not passing the major bill effectively cuts off federally sponsored work on this. Clearly passage of this bill will allow significant NIH funding, all over the country, not just in a few states, and accelerate the research.