Options
Bush is hypocritical with his stance on stem cell research
dunkman
Posts: 19,646
"The stated reason for President Bush's objection to embryonic stem cell research is that 'murder is wrong'; why then does he not intervene to regulate or ban [embryonic] stem cell research carried out with private funds and which is happening across the US?" he asked.
"It is a strange morality indeed that pins the moral status and life of the embryo on the question of who is paying for the research."
Graeme Laurie, an expert in the legal aspects of medicine from Edinburgh University
so its okay if someone else pays for it... but not if he has to? too busy spending the funding on killing people on other side of the world perhaps...
seems to be a hypocritical stance....
"It is a strange morality indeed that pins the moral status and life of the embryo on the question of who is paying for the research."
Graeme Laurie, an expert in the legal aspects of medicine from Edinburgh University
so its okay if someone else pays for it... but not if he has to? too busy spending the funding on killing people on other side of the world perhaps...
seems to be a hypocritical stance....
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
But science is blasphemous in the eyes of the Lord! Bush wants us to return to Cro-magnon man times so that he can meet us all on a level footing!
I hear what you're saying, but I don't really think it's hypocritical. I actually think it's a good compromise. He's not going for the all out ban of scientific research (as the above poster implies) just that American tax payer dollars shouldn't go to fund something that the nation is divided on.
Surely you would agree that the country is split on the issue, and that their are strong arguements and feelings on both sides. Seems reasonable to let people research privately, but to keep the gov't out of it.
Just my opinion...
- Dan
id be pretty shocked if the opposition to stem cell research was anywhere near even a sizable minority. if it's above 33% that would be news to me. i dont think the country's very divided on this one, i just think the ones opposed to it are so loud in their whining and so generous with their money that they made an issue where there was none.
I'm all for stem cell research. I think the private industry can do more with it free from the shackles of federal funding much like I think about most things though.
Bingo....
I tend to disagree my university (well was not that I am graduated) had tonnes of federal funding that went to projects and they were not over-spent...we built the largest Synchotron in North America (one of the largest in the world) and we lead the nation in Biotechnology and also we have federally funded VIDO (which looks at infectious disease)...all federally funded which brought millions of dollars, plus international prestige in these areas; all were primarily federally govenment...but that was money well handled...it could just as easily been mis-used I suppose....but thats my take on it....
That's a big difference then from my University. The waste at that school could only be matched by the Federal Government itself.
There is some very promising research going on with stem cells right now. It actually is very exciting for a lot of people.
I agree that the country is split and that there are strong feelings on both sides. However, I do not agree that there are strong arguments on both sides.
but when ti comes down to it, research requires funding. to my mind, the more funding we get for this research, the better. there's a limit on private funding and i dont see the level of private funding decresing due to government inclusion. the government will be spending that money anyway, so i think stem cell research should be a valid recipient, able and allowed to compete like any other area of scientific research. say there's 100mil in private funding, then the federal govt adds 100mil and 50 of it is tied down in bureacracy (and honestly i dont think that much is lost in government expenditures like this, it is given in grants and relatively free from bureacracy). you've still got 150mil in stem cell research, a 50% increase from previous levels. that's a good thing.
im all for downsizing government, but this isn't an issue of downsizing. it's a question of whether or not money already being spent is allowed to go to this particular project. and it should. id rather include stem cell research and then cut the general budget than deny stem cell research while the budget continues to balloon, which is what's happening.
you honestly believe that? I know it sounds good for you to say it but man, that's a very broad brush and narrow view of people.
Wow, and you call my arguement BS?
You just equated funding a war with funding of scientific medical research.
Apples and oranges my friend...
- Dan
she has a valid point. if the sole basis of stem cell research opposition is moral grounds, why should a citizen morally opposed to war be forced to have their tax dollars fund that?
so true. like the ultra-arch conservative reagan spawn who suddenly decided stem cell research is a good thing after their patriarch got a horrible disease. dubya seems slavishly devoted to reagan worship in every other area (think disastrous foreign policies), why wont he listen to his legacy on this one?
Scientific research can be done without government dollarssince the scientists are independent. Military actions cannot be conducted since the military itself is a government entity.
I am just throwing this out there. I actually kind of agree with your statement.
Well, I would counter thatwith the fact that at the time of the engagement in war, their wasn't a whole lot of moral opposition. Bush was given a blank check almost unanimously by his congress, and its citizens.
And while support has certainly since diminished, I highly doubt very many Americans would prefer to not support the troops via funding, so the only other option would be an immediate pullout, something most Americans also seem to be against.
Support for stem cell research is not the same thing. Those oppossed to it always have, and always will. It's along the same lines of the abortion issue, there isn't a whole lot of middle ground.
- Dan
If the government would actually stop taking over 1/3 of peoples' money, then there would be plenty of private donations to make this research more possible. There would be even more money thant what trickles out of a government bureaucracy. The research itself is not illegal.
I do agree that this research should be separate from the abortion debate though. Much like I think the AIDS issues have always been hurt by being tied to the gay community.
Totally agree...."ignorance is bliss"
Bush's position on the stem cell issue is that all human life (whether potential or actual) is sacred and should be protected. and yet he has launched two wars in full awareness of the potential for the loss of innocent lives, aware of how to manage the wars to prevent much of this loss of life which he then deliberately did not act upon, and continues not to. Even within the stem cell issue, he accepts that most of the 400,000 extant embryos are "going to be destroyed anyway" (his words), as they are leftovers, but still refuses to allow research on them. His ethics on stem cell research, and on the supposed sanctity of life in general, are not only inconsistent, but logically incoherent, both internally and externally. He has a wholly passive, knee-jerk reactionary, response to questions of ethics, and is, as such, unwilling to engage with the fundamental issues that are essential to any meaningful discussion of these issues that affect so many people. He is totlally entitles to his opinions and beliefs if they should work for him on a personal level - fine by me. But when other people's lives are adversely affected by his personal opinions, that is unspeakably unethical, and unacceptable from a man who claims to base so many of his actions on ethics
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2