Will Dubya's Views on Stem Cells Lead to His Downfall?

Bush's views on stem cells will have little or no impact in this election. The hicks and rednecks in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, et al are too uneducated to understand the concept of stem cell research. Not to mention the fact that most Bush supporters think that a fertilized embryo is destroyed in the process, rather than simply fusing the nuclei.

 

I don't know if it's important for Democrats or not, but it's important for our nation and it's health. It's also important if we want to be leaders. If other nations take the lead in developing these medical cures because they are willing to fund the research have lost prestige.

Our country has more resources and wealth and we should be putting it to good use. There are people dying and suffering horrible complications from diseases like Type1 Diabetes. To let these people and others suffering from diseases which might be helped by this research is not compassionate or pro-life.

I don't really apply this to either party, just something that we need to do.

 

The stem cell issue is much more complex than fundementalists and uneducated hicks standing in the way of progress. It's an issue that sparks debates in countries that have not been blessed with Team Bush at the helm.

If Team Bush can divert the debate to stem cells and away from his record of the last four years, i think they would be most pleased.

It will be a non-issue except as a side dish to feed our already entrenched stereotypes.

 

Hasn't Bush funded stem cell research?

 

Is that totally true? I could have sworn I heard a report that dubunked that. I'm not saying the research wouldn't be good for the other things that you mentioned though.

 

With a leash about two feet long.

The US is falling sorely behind other countries in Stem cell research. Soon other countries will be getting rich off Americans trying to by drugs and research from foreign countries.

Doubt it will mean much,
Is it a downfall issue?
maybe maybe no...

 

Actually, he made a half-hearted compromise, a Solomon actually cutting the baby in half, if you will. His policy was that the extant stem cell lines could continue, and he overexaggerated, or cynically lied, about the number of extant lines to make that case. The number of stem cell lines is not sufficient for proper research.

And if the issue is supposed to be as sacred as abortion (the two are far apart, specifically in that the stem cells have yet to differentiate into anything that could remotely be considered human, which is what makes them so limitless in their potential to aid disease; i.e. stem cell lines do not stop any beating hearts), the fact that he grandfathered the paltry few lines in existence should be a moral outrage to the Pro-Life crowd.

Worst of both worlds. No good science, no moral highground.

And no, one can't conclude, even with initial findings, that stem cell lines cannot help (from what I understand, late stage) Alzheimers because there hasn't been sufficient research to draw that conclusion. That's kind of the whole point.

 

I believe the Dems pushing the Stem Cell issue is a direct counter to the gay marriage amendment debacle from the Republicans. I’m sure in the end Stem Cell research will be a larger and more important issue to voters. This research is something that has a much greater chance of directly touching the lives of Americans and this will be better explained in the coming months.

 

It'll be interesting to see what Kerry has to say about it tomorrow. If anything.

 

That's a pretty narrow base there glynch!

 

You've brought up an interesting point.

There is a school of thought that says that the best stem cells come from a fetus. That school of thought would have us utilize the stem cells of aborted fetuses.

That being said, anybody who is ardently opposed to abortion would be troubled by using Federal funds for this. That opposition does NOT have to be religiously based. It can be the result of inwardly held beliefs or ethics.

I have friends who are not religious in the least who oppose abortion simply "because it's wrong." It's just their opinion.

I have a religious problem with abortion, but I am not exactly what you would term a fundamentalist.

All of that taken, were Bush to fund this form of stem cell research given his views on abortion...wouldn't THAT be the flipflop.

 

Technically that would be a flop-flip which would be welcomed by his critics.

 

Yeah, but with the current 'compromise' that's exactly what Bush is doing, with the canard that he refuses to allow any more zygotes to "die" to form future stem cell lines.

The stem cells aren't/wouldn't be taken from aborted fetuses. No baby would ever be aborted in order to harvest stem cell lines; that's the big misnomer. The stem cells would be taken from leftover test tube babies. It's an important distinction.

Ethically, is it allright, if a husband and wife love each other but cannot reproduce naturally, to go in and have in vitro fertilization performed? Without thinking, the answer would seem to be an easy yes. But when such procedures are performed, doctors usually harvest several eggs at a time, fuse them with sperm, and create several possible implants. Essentially, they pop 'em in the fridge and keep trying until the couple becomes pregnant. What happens when a baby is, happily, the result is that all the leftover fused zygotes either sit in a freeze unused, and/or eventually get thrown away. These clumps of replicating cells will never become human, will never be carried to term. These zygotes are so new that they haven't differentiated yet into anything human. All that stem cell researchers want to do is to, essentially, dig in that trash, open the freezer door, and salvage what has the potential to offer amazing cures for debilitating diseases, for people that are suffering right now, today. This isn't about abortion at all. It's not asking us to make the decision to abort a six month old fetus, when a heartbeat and nervous system are readily apparent, in order to help somebody with Parkinson's. IIt's about using the until now useless byproducts of a technology that creates life where none could exist before (in vitro), mere hours/days into their existence, to possibly prevent the suffering of those already alive. And, once enough viable stem cell lines are nurtured, they replicate forever in the lab, and no future zygotes would need to be harvested . We just need to be able to establish those healthy, variant lines. This is not abortion. I don't see how anyone could object, morally, to this.

 

One big point we are missing --- he spoke last night not because of stem cell research but because he is Ronald Reagan Jr. The son and namesake of a conservative icon.

They would have let him talk about anything that fit their agenda just to be able to say Ronald Reagan Jr spoke at the republican convention

 

Dubya has funded stem cell research the same way he has funded "No Child Left Behind" and AIDS relief in Africa.

Christ, the only thing Dubya has funded during his first term has been Halliburton.

 

Kinsley, a heck of a lot more eloquent than me:

 

The son of a conservative icon who died from a neurological disorder that also killed my grandmother. And if we act now, five-ten years from now, another conservative icon like a Charlton Heston or a George HW Bush, or maybe one of my aunts, might not have to die from Alzheimers, or Parkinson's, or diabetes, or a spinal column injury.

I could care less about the politics of this. And, based on his pronouncements, I'm sure that Reagan does as well. You're certainly right that the juxtaposition of Reagan and the DNC is one of the draws. But focusing on the politics of this is extremely petty, given the importance of the issue.

Reagan recognizes his name got him a primetime slot. But he also realizes that any public light he can shine on the importance of this topic is necessary publicity, to get people talking about the issue, even if that conversation is started off with Limbaugh's cheapshot from yesterday.

And let's face it. I'm sure Reagan's life would be much easier if he could speak at the Republican convention on stem cell research. But he can't, because the Republican party line, instituted by Bush, is that future stem cell research is banned. And the Democrats didn't jump just yesterday on this as a political issue. Don't think that no speaker would have addressed this issue if a Republican prodigal son had not offered. The Democratic party platform supports stem cell research. It's one of the reasons to vote for them.

 

Gentlemen:

What is the logical argument for funding stem cell research at the national level? Why is this not a project for venture capitalists, biotechnology engineers, and private investors? Dollars devoted to stem cell research have increased significantly in recent years in the United States. What Ron Reagan and the other Democrats are proposing is to take an issue that a very large percentage of the electorate views as morally objectionable and to use federal dollars (i.e. their taxpayers dollars) to fund it. In this case, where is the tolerance from the left?

This, like all other technological advancements, is a job for private enterprise to tackle.

 

Sixty-three percent of Americans support such research in general, compared to 58 percent in late June. Support for federal funding has remained steady at 60 percent, while opposition gained five points to 36 percent.

Stem-cell research

Personal view:

Support 63%
Oppose 33%

Government funding:

Support 60%
Oppose 36%


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll010803.html