[QUOTE=Pazu]
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”.*
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps. But I’m not talking about whether there is a “chilling effect” or not. I’m adressing the issue of politicians looking to their religion to inform them on ethical decsions.
The suggestion made above was sell beyong the ideaa of providing “cover”-- it was suggested that they were trying to deliberatly confuse people about two different branches of research. Unfortunately, that cuts both ways. They’re just as likely to confuse the voters whom they don’t want to confuse.
They introduce bills all the time that have no chance of passage. In fact, that is a sure sign of political pandering. Why not do it now? They did it with SSM and with the “withdraw immediately form Iraq” idea.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
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?
[/QUOTE]
You are forgetting what it was that I was defending. My point was that politicians are perfectly within their rights to use religious moral convictions when making decisions. Whether or not I personally think this can be justified morally is a different issue altogether.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
You are forgetting what it was that I was defending. My point was that politicians are perfectly within their rights to use religious moral convictions when making decisions. Whether or not I personally think this can be justified morally is a different issue altogether.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I’m all for emrbyonic stem cell research, and I suspect you are, too. But I’m an atheist-- were I a Christian, I’d probably be against it, too.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
The suggestion made above was sell beyong the ideaa of providing “cover”-- it was suggested that they were trying to deliberatly confuse people about two different branches of research. Unfortunately, that cuts both ways. They’re just as likely to confuse the voters whom they don’t want to confuse.
[/QUOTE]
If this is true, and both viewpoints are equally confused, the Republicans would have a net gain in support, because 63% of the voters support embryonic stem cell research. Even if 37% who oppose it are equally confused, there is a net gain for Republicans.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
You are forgetting what it was that I was defending. My point was that politicians are perfectly within their rights to use religious moral convictions when making decisions. Whether or not I personally think this can be justified morally is a different issue altogether.
[/QUOTE]
I never said they aren’t within their rights; I said it’s wrong. When it does harm to others, real world logic should override religion.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Exactly. I’m all for emrbyonic stem cell research, and I suspect you are, too. But I’m an atheist-- were I a Christian, I’d probably be against it, too.
[/QUOTE]
Well, actually, this is the area where my libertarianism breaks down…I am Catholic, and so I see “life” issues a little differently than you do. (Although I respect your position 100%) It may be true that the embryos used are going to be destroyed, and in that case, I am not sure I would oppose the research. However, I have a HUGE, HUGE moral problem with those embryos existing in the first place.
As far as religious people in government, I have no problem with that. I agree that the government is secular, but people are not, and we are supposed to have a representative government. If the people elected GW, then they have a right for him to be the kind of man they elected. I don’t believe in running the government according to polls. People elected GW for a myriad of reasons, not just on this one issue. If 63% of them disagree with him on ESC research, that doesn’t mean that he has to take than into account when deciding on what bills to veto. I would much rather elect someone I disagreed with on a certain issue, but still have him hold to his personal conviction on it, than have him blowing whichever way the wind tells him to.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
I never said they aren’t within their rights; I said it’s wrong. When it does harm to others, real world logic should override religion.
[/QUOTE]
So, are they within their rights, or is it wrong? You said:
Whether or not you see “real world logic” (which the President may or may not see, as this is a pretty subjective area), or whether or not you think that the possible good it could do for people outweighs the moral evil of destroying embryos (another matter of opinion), doesn’t matter. Nowhere does it say in the Constitution that religious people have to set aside their religion when making decisions in government.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
So, are they within their rights, or is it wrong?
[/QUOTE]
The two concepts aren’t mutually exclusive. I’m within my rights, legally speaking, to, say, promote the concept that white people are genetically superior to all other races. That does not make it right, morally speaking.
As for religion in government, certainly, it would be impossible for a religious person in office to wholly seperate their religious beliefs from their moral convictions. However, I also feel that it is a moral wrong to impose laws that have no basis other than religious beliefs on a population that does not necessarily share those religious beliefs. There are good, non-religious reasons for feeding and clothing the poor. I am not aware of any good, non-religious reasons to oppose stem cell research. If Bush has no reasoning to veto this bill other than his own interpretation of scripture, then he is doing a disservice both to his office, and to his country.
'course, this is Bush we’re talking about here, so this should come as a surprise to no one.
[QUOTE=Miller]
The two concepts aren’t mutually exclusive. I’m within my rights, legally speaking, to, say, promote the concept that white people are genetically superior to all other races. That does not make it right, morally speaking.
As for religion in government, certainly, it would be impossible for a religious person in office to wholly seperate their religious beliefs from their moral convictions. However, I also feel that it is a moral wrong to impose laws that have no basis other than religious beliefs on a population that does not necessarily share those religious beliefs. There are good, non-religious reasons for feeding and clothing the poor. I am not aware of any good, non-religious reasons to oppose stem cell research. If Bush has no reasoning to veto this bill other than his own interpretation of scripture, then he is doing a disservice both to his office, and to his country.
'course, this is Bush we’re talking about here, so this should come as a surprise to no one.
[/QUOTE]
It may surprise you, but there are atheists, not to mention people of every other religion besides Christianity, who are pro-life. GW may have formed his convictions because of his religion, but that does not mean that there are no good, non-religious reasons to be pro-life. My personal views on this have very, very little to do with being Catholic, and I could easily see myself leaving religion behind (I struggle with spiritual issues) before I would ever change my mind about this.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
It may surprise you, but there are atheists, not to mention people of every other religion besides Christianity, who are pro-life. GW may have formed his convictions because of his religion, but that does not mean that there are no good, non-religious reasons to be pro-life. My personal views on this have very, very little to do with being Catholic, and I could easily see myself leaving religion behind (I struggle with spiritual issues) before I would ever change my mind about this.
[/QUOTE]
Who’s talking about abortion? I thought we were talking about stem cell research. Which, as you are surely aware, does not cause the destruction of any embryos which were not slated to be destroyed anyway. If you have a problem with that, then you need to stop worrying about stem cells and start working to outlaw the ferilization techniques that led to their creation in the first place. Outlawing stem cell research won’t save a single embryo.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Who’s talking about abortion? I thought we were talking about stem cell research. Which, as you are surely aware, does not cause the destruction of any embryos which were not slated to be destroyed anyway.
[/quote]
Especially since another bill (which Bush is expected to sign) specifically prohibits “embryo farming”, or creating embryos for the express purposes of research.
To be fair, it’s the federal funding that would be outlawed, not the field itself (although that alone would probably have a significant effect on research in the field).
[QUOTE=Miller]
Who’s talking about abortion? I thought we were talking about stem cell research. Which, as you are surely aware, does not cause the destruction of any embryos which were not slated to be destroyed anyway. If you have a problem with that, then you need to stop worrying about stem cells and start working to outlaw the ferilization techniques that led to their creation in the first place. Outlawing stem cell research won’t save a single embryo.
[/QUOTE]
Right, and that’s why I said this, earlier in the thread:
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
It may be true that the embryos used are going to be destroyed, and in that case, I am not sure I would oppose the research.
[/quote]
Based on the summary of the bill above, it appears that it is in fact true that only embryos slated to be destroyed could be used for research.
But this is beside the point for this particular legislation.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
GW may have formed his convictions because of his religion, but that does not mean that there are no good, non-religious reasons to be pro-life.
[/QUOTE]
No, there are not. Care to prove otherwise ? Being “pro-life” is, in fact a denigration of life; by claiming a few cells have the value of an actual person, the “pro-life” view reduces people to nothing more valuable than a smear on a petri dish.
This affair is a case in point; the “pro-life” movement is willing to sacrifice any number of people for it’s cause by suppressing/hindering stem cell research. They don’t care about the people who will suffer and die, because to a “pro-lifer” actual human life is expendable.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
It may be true that the embryos used are going to be destroyed, and in that case, I am not sure I would oppose the research. However, I have a HUGE, HUGE moral problem with those embryos existing in the first place.
[/quote]
Are you saying you want to ban in vitro fertilization?
[QUOTE=Pazu]
Based on the summary of the bill above, it appears that it is in fact true that only embryos slated to be destroyed could be used for research.
But this is beside the point for this particular legislation.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with that.