Saw this on Drudge this morning marked as “controversial” but I find it completely reasonable.
It has been shown that no one has to die to collect stem cells, heck I even think they showed how to get them from baby teeth when they fall out. Why does something like that have to be illegal?
I think Jon Stewart said it best with his War on Terrorble Diseases.
I have no problem with stem cell research, but I do have a problem with EMBRYONIC stem cell harvesting/research. It has been established, but not conclusively, that embryonic stem cells are no better than “regular” stem cells from cord blood, existing lines, and many other sources that do not require the destruction of an embryo.
I agree, that’s why this ad may be misleading.
I’m not from Missour”uh”, so I have no idea what the politician’s stance is, but if he is only against embryonic stem cell research, then it’s a very misleading ad. Otherwise, it’s a fantastic emotional plea.
As much as I respect MJF, I’m afraid it’s likely the former though, since who in their right mind is against non-embryonic stem cell research? The Amish?
I think it’s pretty well understood that what we’re talking about is embryonic stem cell research. When researchers tell me that they need embryonic stem cells, or that those stem cells are more flexible than ordinary ones, I think I have to take them at their word.
What’s going on is this: Bushie needs to keep is base energized. No one considered destroying embryos wrong until a few years ago — it was (and is) common place. Stem cell research is where you take embryos that would be discarded anyway, and use them to create life. Non-controversial so far right?
That’s where Karl Rove steps in. He organized a bunch of people to go around saying that embryonic stem cell research was like abortion or that embryos are people too. He doesn’t believe it, and neither does Bush, but nothing energizes the GOP base like self-righteousness. They live on it.
And that leads us to where we are today.
And now even you are being misleading ken:
The ban is simply on government funding of embryonic stem cell research. In practicality, it’s not as easy as it sounds, but the truth is this: research on embryonic stem cells is not banned, just government funding for it.
mgroves, please show me where I indicated that a ban was in place on research. Nationally, no such ban exists, however there are those in the GOP who favor such a ban.
California, on the other hand, has funded stem cell research far beyond what anyone hoped the federal government would even do anyway.
It is true that there is no ban on embryonic stem cell research, but rather the GOVERNMENTAL funding of this research is restricted or banned. Private companies and private investors are fully capable of providing funding for this type of research.
On the flip side, there have been absolutely, positively NO clear evidence that embryonic stem cells are better than any other type of stem cells, and in fact, no cures, remedies, or treatments have been linked to embryonic stem cells. Most of the successful treatments have come from umbylical cord stem cells (which most of the cures or treatments have come from), adult stem cells from varying parts of the body, or other alternative sources of stem cells (animal for example).
I feel that killing an embryo just for its stem cells, or for any other reason, is politically at least and morally at the most, wrong on so many levels. I for one would never want a cure for an ailment to come from the intentional death of another human being. Wit that being said, the human donor program would not fall along this line of reasoning due to as most donors are killed or die of natural causes, not killed just so their organs can be harvested.
Contact
Subscribe
Oct 23, 2006 
Author: 