Stem Cell Rsch-This August in CongressFollow

So I heard on NPR this morning (no print media link) that Congress is going to take up increases stem cell research funding again when it reconvenes in the fall. This issue has had its ups and downs. Bush is notoriously against federal dollars going to it, and passed an executive order against it. Congress was holding to the party line, but is loosening up more and more, especially Bill Frist, Congressional Doctor Token. This is largely credited to former activist Dana Reeves and former First Lady Nacy Regan championing the cause. Bush objects to it on (what else) moral grounds, saying that the extraction of stem cells in effect kills the fetus and tying it in to abortion. However, the fetuses specified in the Congressional bills are mostly ones that were already aborted for one reason or another, and are
a)already dead
b)on thier way to the incinerator otherwise.

What do you think of the administration's stance on this issue? How, if it does, does it tie in to abortion at all? Bush seems to keep making this connection when it doesn't really exist, IMO.

Indefensible.

It's obvious pandering to a small but extremely vocal minority on the far right, and is no more acceptable than pandering to the equivalent small but vocal minority on the far left.

Stem cells and cloning are hot buttons. Hot buttons should not be used to make policy. Sound bites do not equal statesmanship.

/bump

not because I have anything deep or insightful but when Ambryas "I hate the 4th" is on top of 'Stem Cell Rsch-This August in Congress" The 4th and the Rsch blend together when skimming into 4th Reich and completely throws me off.

yeah right, it's fucking religious grounds. Such a blatant dismissal of church/state seperation. There is no good logic behind Bush's objection to this.



as everyone else in the thread has pretty much said,... it's just more bullsh;t for the sake of bullsh't.

According to Gbaji, people will be in awe of the fiscal responsibility this shows

Try this: http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/

I'm just curious. Have you ever heard Bush make that connection? Or did you just hear a bunch of anti-Bush folks say it, so you assumed it must be true?

Because that's not what he actually said or did.

He was the first president to federally fund stem cell research. However, he chose to restrict the federally funded research to those strains of cells that had already been harvested at that time. That's not exactly a hard line right wing position. It's actually pretty darn moderate. He's also not preventing any private research at all. He's just not putting public funds into "new" lines of cells.

Seems like a reasonable compromize position to take. Remember, that federal funds are collected by taxing "the people". How that money is spent should reflect how the people want it to be spent. You can disagree with those who are uncomfortable with the idea of using these cells for research, but they do have a right to their beliefs, and to at least some degree a right not to have their money taken from them and used for a purpose that they don't agree with. Spending federal funds on something which violates the ethics of a significant percentage of the public's ethical beliefs (whether religious or otherwise) is pretty questionable.

And yeah Joph. There's certainly a degree of fiscal responsiblity involved as well. Funding does not *have* to come from the federal government for research to occur. What exactly is wrong with choosing to save federal dollars in this case. Again. His position on this is extremely moderate and reasonable, but to hear most opponents talk, he's put the kibosh on anything vaguely scientific, and done so purely for religious reasons.

But that's the "boogyman" that the Left loves to toss out there. Let's ignore the facts and just keep telling people the rhetoric. Repeat it often enough, and lots of people will believe it...

Boogey!
Jesus, Gbaji. It's not often I resort to personal attacks, but you make it tempting.

Four joo.

You know this really means "Polish version" right?

Um. By that argument, no presidential veto is ever valid. Is that what you really believe?

Did you read the bill? Did you read the speach I linked? What part of Bush approving of funding for research using current harvested strains of stem cells but not introducing new ones was unclear? And what part of that approach equates in your mind to a "ban"? Is the new definition of ban "when somone doesn't make something illegal, does not restrict it, but only partially funds it"?

C'mon Joph. Can you please admit that the term "ban" here is pure rhetoric?




It's a bogus question Joph. First off, are we talking about why Congress would oppose it, or why Bush would oppose it? Cause you're mixing them up willy-nilly here. Secondly, do you really need someone to tell you that there's a fiscal issue with regard to a federally funded program? I'm serious here. Every program has fiscal ramifications. Choosing to fund or not fund one will *always* rely to some degree on one's fiscal agenda.



I invite you to at least have a clue what we're talking about. I was responding to assumptive statements about George Bush's position on stem cell research. Thus, it would seem that clear to most people that finding members of Congress saying whatever it is you seem to think I need to find them saying to support my statements is totally irrelevant.

I posted a link to a speach by the president for a reason. Thought it was kinda obvious...

Forgot aboutThe part where scientists say that the existing lines of stem cells are contaminated?

Luckily, we see that the White House was on top of this

Edited, Jul 6th 2006 at 11:28pm EDT by Jophiel

Kao...you're pretty fucked up.