Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Stemming The Tide Of Progress

Posted by codemorse

From Oliverwillis.com:

Through bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate, funding for life-saving stem cell research has been approved. The president, a slave to the regressive religious right, is going to kill it.

The Senate today approved legislation that would expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a measure President Bush has vowed to veto as soon as it reaches his desk.

The veto, expected tomorrow, would be the first of Bush’s 5 1/2-year presidency.

There are two uses for these cells:
1. Throw them away down the drain

2. Use them to save possibly hundreds of thousands of human lives.

The president and the con movement has chosen the latter, simply to boost their own inflated egos.

We must have a government that respects the will of the people and infuses scientist with the funds they need to save human lives.


Willis goes on to start frothing at the mouth about how the Republican Party wants to make you suffer, or some generalized and ridiculous nonsense like that. Still, the fact remains: the Republican Party's members have been instrumental in blocking this line of research. Not only is it detrimental to the development of cures and salves for myriad diseases, it's also detrimental to this country's economy. While President Bush dithers over the "human life potential" of cells that clearly do not have any, the rest of the world is advancing stem cell research without us.

Yet another economic area we are willingly surrendering to our competitors without a fight. When our children grow to working age, will they move to India and China to compete for jobs? Or will they settle for the handful of remaining industries left inside the domestic United States? Namely, retail and hospitality services?

4 Comments:

At 4:54 PM, Blogger Scott Roche said...

It's not like embryonic stem cells are guaranteed to be useful. Besides what about placental cells

 
At 5:23 PM, Blogger codemorse said...

What about them?

Can't we use both?

Please, explain to me the logic behind denying stem cell research. I'm not being snarky or short, I honestly would like to know if there's something I'm missing here.

 
At 12:00 PM, Blogger Scott Roche said...

Can't do it, but at the same time I think the other side holds them up as being guaranteed cure alls. I fall somewhere in the middle. I do think that the gov't should share the wealth here but with lots of oversight.

 
At 12:29 PM, Blogger codemorse said...

at the same time I think the other side holds them up as being guaranteed cure alls.

I disagree. The scientists, officials, and government types who are advocating for stem cell research have been honest and open about the fact that such research MAY provide cures.

That others have run with that and inflated the initial promise of such research is not the research's fault, nor the fault of the men and women who are realistic about the possibilities.

Is the possibility of eventual disappointment a good reason to deny research?

If, by middle-of-the-road, you mean "advocating for responsible scientific study," I couldn't agree more.

Remember the middle of the road? I miss it. We've been encouraged to drive so far to the left and right for the past several years that it's easy to forget how straight and clear and easy to follow that bright yellow line in the middle really is.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home