Stem cell research breakthrough

sailaway21 · #1 (**permalink**) 12-01-2007

The debate over embryonic stem cells is over. We now can use just a small amount of skin to do the same thing. There will be no need to harvest embryos for research or cures for implacable maladies.

What was really amazing about the controversy was how far people were willing to go down a slippery moral road for the sake of a ready supply of embryonic stem cells. Even when adult stem cells had not been fully exploited and there were no impediments to privately obtained stem cell research, the claim of Ludditism was laid at the feet of those refusing a role for the Federal giovernment in the matter. Today, once again, George Bush is the possesor of the strange new wisdom award. This award's recipient is best known for having been correct all along, but is now the recipient of newly found respect among his detractors and, hence is found to possess a "strange new widom". Unnoticed is yet another setback to the abortion and infanticide crowd who advocate policies more and more irrelevant in the 21st century. Science and, even more, societal mores are doing what the law never could. Millions of babies will be around to eventually say thanks.

More on the stem cell debate from inside of government:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...NiM2M1MTdhYzg=

PBzeer · #2 (**permalink**) 12-01-2007

Jonah Goldberg at NRO also has an informative article about how some who once supported embryonic stem cell research have suddenly realized it wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

sailaway21 · #3 (**permalink**) 12-01-2007

You can read Goldberg's article here. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...NkNDg4MGU1YmQ=

xort · #4 (**permalink**) 12-01-2007

Methinks it was anti-Bush and not a lot more. If Bush didn't want it then we need it!
Oh, and research money.

T34C · #5 (**permalink**) 12-02-2007

"What was really amazing about the controversy was how far people were willing to go down a slippery moral road for the sake of a ready supply of embryonic stem cells."

SA- You're assuming the term "moral" applies to them.

Joel73 · #6 (**permalink**) 12-02-2007

As a liberal who wasn't in support of using embryonic research... it's nice that there have been alternative ways to realize the goal. A compromise.

Xort, maybe so but i believe a large portion of people are pro-science rather than anti-bush.

sailaway21 · #7 (**permalink**) 12-02-2007

To call it a compromise casts a light upon the battle that fails to illuminate. President Bush resolutely stood against the government funding of destruction of human embryos for scientific research. For this he was called a Luddite and worse. That science itself was able to make the political arguments of organized science irrelevant in no way diminishes the ferocity exhibited by the "pro-science" forces. That the "anti-science" forces never got past being defined as other than GW Bush and the hayseeds who supported him is hardly cause to proclaim victory for the pro-science crowd. Bush as anti-science was never more than a convenient caricture for a left that likes it meat raw and bloody. Why argue morality when you can choose to argue stupidity? Yet another straw man target named Bush the left set up only to discover it a chimera. A leftist culture that decried faith as an arbiter of medical research principles finds, in the end, that it had not nearly enough faith in it's own resources let alone the Almighty's. Politicized science ordered up the most obtuse President in recent history for breakfast and ended up wearing their breakfast. Eggs were served, I believe.

T34C · #8 (**permalink**) 12-02-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joel73

As a liberal who wasn't in support of using embryonic research... it's nice that there have been alternative ways to realize the goal. A compromise.

Xort, maybe so but i believe a large portion of people are pro-science rather than anti-bush.

I hate these threads, so I may wish I had never jumped in here....

To my knowledge (however limited) very little science was developing using embryonic stem cells other than a lot of "possible future advances". I believe most of the true achievements have come from adult stem cell research. Additionally, President Bush gave more funding to stem cell research than anyone (including the liberally aclaimed W.J. Clinton). The issues arose when Mr. Bush limitied what lines of embryonic stem cells could be used for research. Not weather they could be used, but which ones. He did this on the basis of morals and personal judgement of what his constituents want. Exactly what we elect a president to do.

Joel73 · #9 (**permalink**) 12-02-2007

Sailaway. My point was that i think that its great that the goal was reached without embryonic research. I would consider it progress.

Do you disagree?

Joel73 · #10 (**permalink**) 12-02-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by T34C

I hate these threads, so I may wish I had never jumped in here....

That makes two of us... most of the time, all i hear is chest beating and it's not constructive. If a person wants to get a point across it's usually better received by articulate, open dialog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by T34C

To my knowledge (however limited) very little science was developing using embryonic stem cells other than a lot of "possible future advances". I believe most of the true achievements have come from adult stem cell research. Additionally, President Bush gave more funding to stem cell research than anyone (including the liberally aclaimed W.J. Clinton). The issues arose when Mr. Bush limitied what lines of embryonic stem cells could be used for research. Not weather they could be used, but which ones. He did this on the basis of morals and personal judgement of what his constituents want. Exactly what we elect a president to do.

I would agree with this.