House Democrats have followed through on one of the promises for their first 100 working hours in control of Congress by passing legislation that allows federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research (“100 hours: House passes stem-cell bill despite veto threat”). Such funding was halted by President Bush shortly after he assumed office in 2001, and similar legislation passed last year resulted in the President’s first and only veto. While advances have been made in other types of stem cells, most scientists maintain that embryonic stem cells, derived from human embryos frozen for in vitro fertilization, offer by far the most promise for the re-growth of human tissue, particularly nerve cells and insulin-producing cells. Polling indicates that this research is also supported by a majority of Americans. Bush, who has threatened to veto this bill as well, claims that federal taxpayer dollars should not be used to destroy human life in the name of research. Supporters of such research point not only to the many medical breakthroughs that could result, but the fact that such frozen cells, when not used for research, are simply thrown away.
Do you support the use of taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem-cell research? Do you see any room for compromise that would either bring the President on board with such research, or build a veto-overriding majority? How much of a role do you think stem-cell research will play in the upcoming presidential election in 2008?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 15
As mentioned above the Embryonic Stem cells in question are going to be "disposed of" any way... why not use them for the common good?
If tax dollars are used for other types of research then they should help fund all types of research... not just those that the "decider" believes in.
You are right, Kathleen...and another example of pandering to the unscientific biases of the religious right.
One would hope that a sufficient number of Republicans in the Congress, seeing how the issue helped Democrats enormously in the mid-term elections (Rush Limbaugh's drug-fueled ranting at Michael J Fox, notwithstanding), will join the Democrats in over-riding the threatened veto.
What about the important issues: the war, the deficit, energy, healthcare?
Instead we waste the first 100 hours of a new Congress fighting over which stem cell strains used by a handful of research projects will receive federal funding.
This is beyond absurd!
By the way, obtaining amniotic fluid is not without risk to the mother and the fetus, though they just announced recently that with experienced practitioners it's much less risky than it used to be thought.
Re: "Human life should only be destroyed in the effort to make Bush, Cheney and friends richer than rich."
This statement is absolutley idiotic unless you can give the readers some deffinition or fact or reference to back it up. Those type of comments are so tiring. How about giving those of us who live in the real world a break for while.
"Gatobilis,
Re: "Human life should only be destroyed in the effort to make Bush, Cheney and friends richer than rich."
This statement is absolutley idiotic unless you can give the readers some deffinition or fact or reference to back it up. Those type of comments are so tiring. How about giving those of us who live in the real world a break for while."
I think it's obvious what he is referring to and I think it's idiotic to think that he doesn't have facts to back it up as everyone here is quite aware of the evidence, you especially, being in the "real world" and all.
If you were to say something clever like "Human life should only be destroyed so that Clinton can keep getting tail in the Oval Office uninterrupted" no one would ask you for references. That's silly. Of course Clinton wouldn't veto stem cell research and probably because he's intelligent.
How -- specifically-- are Bush Chenny and freinds getting rich getting rich from distroying life? How much money can you account for being made as of this date. Where is that money and how is it being transfered to those that are getting rich.
And as a side note comparing Clintons now proven escapades to unsubstaiated claims that Bush and company are getting rich off of distroying life only makes the case of what a wacko world your mind must be living in. If you wish me to enter into it How about coming up with the facts and evidence to substantiate it
How does Haliburton buisness wealth relate to Bush unless....
are you saying the Haliburton CEO and Board of directors are kicking back money to Bush to keep the war going? Any proof?? Any Documentation?? How about the companies of Bechtel and Stevedoring Services of America and USAID and Parsons. How do they fit into the scheme of things?? Are they kicking back too or do they get a free ride to make money rebuilding a country we have decimated? I find it sad that a company that can make billions of dollars year after year can't get thier stock price above 30 dollars a share on a regular basis.
I'm not going to say Haliburton is the best Company for the jobs it was awarded but you know people don't like Microsoft running the computer world either but no body has a better mouse except Apple.
Halliburton been raping us taxpayers (you included) by overcharging for their expenses in the so-called reconstruction. They sent convoys through hot spots where most contractors would not come back to tell the tale and the ones who have figured out exactly what a contractor means to them. These contractors families got nothing while Halliburton got to write off the trucks they were driving. At the same time they were in charge of making sure the soldiers had clean water to shower in and some contractors have come back to report that this was not done properly and Halliburton told them not to worry about it. These contractors were certain that many of our soldiers would be coming home with pathogens in their blood.
If you are looking for official documentation over this then you are just plain naive. Halliburton can hide their records by calling them "proprietary". I suggest you watch the documentary "Iraq for Sale" where many former contractors from all the companies involved are interviewed and the resumes of people involved are exposed to show that there was just a whole bunch of back-scratching going on and you start to see why the Republicans in Congress were turning a blind eye.
It's amazing to see the kind of career crossovers between the Defense and Oil Industries.
-A human embryo is precious, but it is potential human life, not lived human life. Using the embryo that would otherwise be discarded for stem-cell research gives the embryo the ability to fulfill some of its potential and contribute to humanity before dying.
-Not only does the human embryo used for stem-cell research give its (potential) life to further life, most humans when alive give a good chunk of their lives for the well-being of other humans. A human who is helped by the discoveries of embryonic stem-cell research is empowered to continue contributing to human life as a whole.
-Although I favor most such research be done by private laboratories, the government should be involved to ensure ethical behavior by the organizations doing stem-cell research--at least until such ethics are internalized by our culture. Individuals who are not accountable may develop a cavalier mentality and reckless behavior. Government involvement also is likely to help investment in this area and improve the economy. It also signals our development of this area to other countries.
I see embryonic stem-cell research as a side issue in the next election not because it isn't important, but because I believe it will happen on its own. Because it will happen on its own gives us all the more reason to embrace it now. By choosing to go forward with such embryonic stem-cell research, we have the opportunity to shape and influence the ethics of this research.
Moreover, embryonic stem-cell research for the cure of diseases will likely be surpassed in the not too distant future by other means.