Veto risk threatens stem-cell funding
So, out of all the crap to come out of Congress in the last 6 years or so, this is what our President might use his first veto on? Instead of building a wall at the border, why don't we just put up a big sign that says, "Now entering Stupidland."
At stake are hundreds of millions of dollars and the opportunity to take the lead in cutting-edge scientific research that could lead to cures for Parkinson's disease, spinal-cord injuries, heart disease and other conditions.
But, on the other hand, we may offend some people who don't understand (or worse, just disregard) science.
As with the abortion debate, where the "pro-life" crowd shows that they really don't have any interest in actually reducing abortions (since they're pretty well opposed to all the things that might do that, like birth control, sex education, etc.), but rather in forcing their beliefs on everyone else, they miss the boat here again. If they're really so concerned about the "human life" that is being wasted with stem cell research, where is their program to find wombs for all these embryos? Surely if they are too precious to be used for research, they are also too precious to be sitting around in a freezer forever, or even worse being discarded. And shouldn't they be looking for laws against IVF as well, since that's where these embryos come from. And shouldn't a President who feels so stongly about the issue that he would veto this bill be leading the charge in trying to free these poor embryos from their frozen prison?
Seriously, though, I get so annoyed when people take some supposed moral high ground to oppose something that could help people, and hurts no one. I realize they claim that the embryos are the ones being hurt, however, they take no action outside of opposing the research that indicates that they truly believe the embryos are so important. It's frustrating to have to argue against a position that doesn't rely on any sort of logic.
I'd really hate to see Bush break his no veto record though. I suggest instead that he have his cabinet declare Congress 'quaint' then attach a signing statement to the bill that says people with diseases can fuck off and die, then he can stage a photo-op where he pisses on Christopher Reeve's grave.
6 comments:
excellent rant. Came here from Shake's.
Here's something interesting about the pro life movement and the rhythm method (currently the only birth control method "allowed" by the Catholic church)
http://jme.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/32/6/355
According to this medical journal report, there are more embryonic deaths from they rhythm method than there are from other forms of bc.
I guess if you "accidentally" kill an embryo that doesn't count.
The government does fund research, storm. If they didn't, perhaps I could see your point. But they do, and they should fund this research because it is important, and people want it.
Storm, you miss the point. Holly's linkis irrelevant to your personal objection to the funding of stem cell research on grounds that it isn't the government's place to do this research. However, that is not the argument that most of the opponents are making, they are making the argument that it is wrong because it destroys human life. And if you think they're not in favor of banning the research altogether than you're not paying attention. The only reason they're not actively working for that is that they don't have the support for it. However, I can see them taking that step if their efforts are successful to limit government funding of the research.
Your argument is disengenuous because it assumes that everyone's objection to the funding of research is the same as yours, which you know is not true. And also because you know that the government does fund research, whether you support it or not.
I do not doubt government funds research. I question 2 things first the success of that research and secondly the Constitutional grounds of that research.
And that's a completely different argument than the one the vocal opponents of this bill (who my post addresses) are making.
I never said you want to ban the practice, I said that you can bet the people opposing it on moral grounds most certainly do. Believe it or not, I do not form all my opinions of consevatives based only on the two conservative commentors on my blog.
I agree the government spends way too much of our money. Where we disagree is what to get rid of. I say funding stem cell research is far more important than many, many things the government wastes money on, most notably a pointless war. I'd much rather money be spent that could possibly save people than spending it killing people, even if we occasionally kill some bad people.
I don't think it necessarily can or should be handled by the private sector. You could make that argument for anything. Maybe you're one of those people that thinks the government should do almost nothing, but I'm not.
Of course the government spends too much money, but have you been objecting to all the other incredible wastes of money supported by your conservative brethern? Or is it just this one you have a problem with? Because it honestly seems like an odd time to suddenly close up the checkbook.
Storm, as for why the private sector can't fund this, I've seen it explained much better than I could do it in many other places in the last couple of days. Look around and I'm sure you'll be able to find plenty of good reasons.
As for the drugs you mention, I don't know a lot about the details of drug research, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if you looked back deeply into the research that led to the drugs you're talking about to find a lot of public money, especially in early stages. Why do you think the government doesn't contribute to things like this?
There are plenty of places where it would be a good idea to say enough already regarding government spending, but this is most certainly not that place.
Post a Comment