House Republicans come to their senses
CBS/AP:
A majority of Americans approve of using embryonic stem cells in medical studies, according to a CBS News poll. Fifty-eight percent say they support stem cell research, while 31 percent disapprove.
Approval is higher now than it was last August; then, 50 percent approved and 31percent disapproved, but 19 percent had no opinion.
Republicans are less likely than Democrats to approve of it, although half do. Approval of stem cell research among Republicans has risen significantly since last year; then, 37 percent approved of it, now 50 percent do. Approval has risen among Democrats as well, although less dramatically, from 57 to 65 percent now.
CBS News Correspondent Elizabeth Kaledin notes that while the stem cell debate has intensified in this country, the actual research on embryonic stem cells to treat disease is moving ahead in other countries. Known as "stem cell refugees," hundreds of top American scientists have left the U.S. to work on research overseas.
The medical promise of embryonic stem cell research prompted several House members of both parties who oppose abortion rights to vote yes nonetheless. The moral obligation, they argued, rested on Congress to fund research that could lead to cures for debilitating illnesses.
"Who can say that prolonging a life is not pro-life?" said Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., who said she had a "perfect" pro-life record and whose mother-in-law had died the night before of Alzheimer's disease.
"I must follow my heart on this and cast a vote in favor," she said.
"Being pro-life also means fighting for policies that will eliminate pain and suffering," said Rep. James R. Langevin, D-R.I., who was paralyzed at 16 in a gun accident.
I saw a quote on CNN this morning, where Bush was talking to some adoptees and said: "This proves there is no such thing as an extra embryo."
Except that there are, all the time, from fertility treatments. I suppose he would prefer that these "leftovers" were grown in testtubes or pig wombs to full maturity?
And also, can someone on the right (I know you're reading this) explain to me how the death penalty and war are not destroying life to save life, whereas stem-cell research is? I suppose "stem-cell research" is just one of those meaningless liberal terms. The proper term would be "cloning" or "murder", right?
Culture of life my ass.
my feed
2 Comments:
the right will typically use the term "innocent" in distinguishing between these.
But your president doesn't. He says he doesn't want to go down the path of destroying life to save life, and there's no mention of "innocence". Anyway, your boys at the Defense Department shrug off the deaths of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, calling it collateral damage that must be accepted if American lives are to be spared.
And it's only a matter of time now before we execute an innocent man. Have you seen the DNA problems they're having in Virginia?
Indeed, isn't taking a guilty life to save another life medically also wrong? What would the right say about harvesting organs from violent criminals? I'd rather experiment on stem cells that for me do not represent human life (and never will, since they'll never reach anything close to maturity) than on death-row inmates who are full-grown human beings.
maybe your absolutely correct in demonstrating their similarities
As a matter of fact, I don't think there are similarities, as you assume. I DO think that both war and the death penalty are both (ill-advised) ways of destroying life to save life, whereas a stem cell is hardly life, certainly not "human" life, though it may come from a human. Human life requires more than human DNA, as I hope you'll agree.
does a man killed for crimes committed, a man killed for bearing arms against our troops, and a man killed for living 14 days after conception stir up the same set of emotions for a person on the left?
It's the killing --whatever for-- that stirs up the emotions on the left. We'd like to avoid it at all costs, the right seems all too happy to encourage it, unless it's a 14 day-old group of cells. It's only after they're born that the right stops caring about them.
Already-life takes precedence over not-yet-life. Where human life begins is for the scientists and philosophers to figure out. What I'm sure of though, is that an embryo isn't it.
Since I disagree with much of what is attributed to "the left", I can't necessarily speak for it. What I can tell you, is that you probably wouldn't like my answer to your question. I believe in science, and in scientific expirimentation. Experimentation in such controversial fields, however, should only be reserved for such cases as when the information is not retrieveable from any other source, and has a strong potential to save lives.
The question of keeping a fetus growing is another matter. If it is growing, it has the potential to reach full maturity (guaranteeing that it will be "living" whenever we decide it starts). Endangering the health of such a being ought to be prohibited.
Since you posed me with such a tough question stomper, allow me to pose one to you:
If for some reason a family must choose between the life of a mother and the life of her unborn child, which should they choose?
I know that I can't answer that question, stomper. It's a question for the family, and the family alone to decide -- not the government. And each case is different. That's why I favor keeping the government from making any of those decisions for citizens and families.
Those bumper-sticker sayings-- great aren't they? You know, they're so funny because they contain a grain of truth.
Post a Comment
< Main