....[b]me too![/b]

no, i will not agree with your statement.  i think the potential benefits from stem cell research should very much be used as a "selling point" in issues regarding it.  but i must point out that it is already legal.  and yes, researchers are concerned about  getting money for their studies.  and i don't see a problem with that being a major concern.  no money=no research. but, then, that's exactly the way some people want to keep it, isn't it?

and as the concern for "right and wrong," it's only being called wrong by those who adamantly refuse to dissociate from abortion-on-demand clinics.  did nobody read the response where fertility clinics are a large source of this embryonic tissue?  trash or research that might saves lives?  hhmmmmmm.  doesn't seem like a hard question to me.

as to the funding question (addressed to anyone in particular) here's the rub.  if you are against government funding for stem cell research, are you against it period, or just against EMBRYONIC stem cell research?  if you're against it because of the source, why?  is it that you associate it with abortion-on-demand?  show me evidence that the two are directly related and supporting the one will increase/help the other.

if you're just against it period, are you also against any governmental funding for any other medical research?  how about diabetes?  cancer?  alzheimer's or parkinson's disease?  or how about the multidude of drug research (not the illegal kind).  or is it a Constitutional issue?

now, i'll answer my own questions.  i'm not against stem cell research at all.  i'm mixed on government funding because there is not Constitutional basis for it yet i know darn good and well, that private donations have never and will never be enough to equal the results we've had in medicine with goverment funded research.

i forget who said it, but just because it might be the next big thing does not mean that private monies will be made readily available.  in the first place, funding strict research is mostly a charitable act.  there is hardly ever any reward.  and the results belong solely to the organization managing the the research, be it universities, hospitals, bio/tech/med companies.  and even if a deal is made between investors and owners of this cool stuff, the results, and thus the dividends are extremely long term and may never pan out to expectations.  prozac took almost twenty years to get from the origination of the idea to the pharmacist's medicine cabinet.  that's a long time to wait for some profits.  i'd rather see my money go to this kind of research than to worthless welfare programs or foreign aid to a country that's going to turn around and use it against us.

In that case, I guess antibiotics, dental surgery, pesticides, irrigation and air conditioning are "playing God" too.

Adult & Animal stem cell research - Yes, Fund It.

EMBRYONIC stem cell research - No

why?  i'm curious.  is it because you associate it with abortion-on-demand clinics and think that is the sole source of embryonic tissues?

no flame intended.  i'm trying to understand how someone can think that it's only connection to embryonic tissue is through abortion-on-demand clinics.  what of medically necessary abortions?

I'm in favor of stem cell research in general, but against the source of stem cells being harvested from aborted fetuses.

If the stem cells can be harvested from fat of adukts, or umbilical cords of delivered children, o.k.

I thought 'we' (meaning Clinton & Co.) were trying to make abortions [b]'legal, safe, and [u]rare[/u]'[/b] so why put ANY added incentive or encouragement to abort on those whose decision it is to make?

And why the HELL is George W. Bush making such a big production out of HIS announcement. Since his decision is bound to pi$$ some folks off, why not let the Surgeon General announce the Bush Administration's decision at a news conference at 4:00, PM, Friday?

Eric The(It'sCalled'Delegation')Hun[>]:)]

For it!
Anything which may bring back some of the vision I lost to my stroke,I will vote for.
I am a selfish SOB.
cpermd

That makes the odd and unfounded assumption that the fact that stem cells would be harvested from aborted babies would influence more women to have abortions. I find that highly unlikely.

Post from RikWriter -

Sorry, RikWriter, but I'm taking a page from the 'Clinton & Co.' Handbook - if it 'saves' a single fetus, then the price is justified.

What not simply let the drug companies, who stand to make a bundle, put a 'bounty' on umbilical cords from successfully delivered babies?

Eric The(Hell,I'dSell'EmAnyIHadAClaimTo)[>]:)]

Checking in late, but I am for the research. Indeed, where would we be without pressing on in these matters?

Tyler

ARLady and others...a very interesting and well thought through discussion on what could easily have become an "emotional, religious discussion", in other words, non-productive.

To clarify my opinion on federal authority to control aspects of Stem cell research.....they don't have it (the authority), they shouldn't have it, and they should tax us less because they don't need the money that "would be" allocated.

Jerry Lewis has done pretty well funding MS research via individual contributions...

Imagine the States having the "responsibility" to rule on the funding... they could create funding coalitions, states in favor could fund it while states where the religious freaks need the money to tell others what to think could refrain...

Alan keyes had an interesting take on it also.....
Is this still an apple off the tree no matter how wonderfull it looks or nurishing it is?

Another look at things is say that it comes to the point they are able to "clone" people for parts or the organs, who is going to reap those benifits? The rich will prosper and the rest of society will have to play catch up.I think it will lead to more class warfare...those with and those without!

I am opposed to stem cell research.

I am completely pro-life.

I oppose federal laws either for or against either.

I oppose a lot of research, however, think it is not the federal government's place to legislate about or fund these things.

                -JmE-

BTW: My ideology is similar to that of FC (aka unibomber, et al) although I do NOT approve of the methods chosen.

First off, they will not be cloning a whole person for "spare parts."  It will be much cheaper and easier to use cloned tissue to grow the spare parts on artificial matrix.  As for only the rich benefiting...well, you could have said the same about organ transplant a couple decades ago.

I don't have all the information to formulate an opinion yet.

But I did see Michael J. Fox on tv today and Parkinson's has really taken it's toll on him.

I honestly don't really see how this is an abortion issue.  Assuming I had a small child that got hit by a bus, and is in a comma.  He has no hope to survive and is brain dead.  The doctors want to use his body for an experimental transplantation to try and save the life of another child.  They also indicate that it only has a 1% chance of success. I say "okay", if it might help the other child even a little.  I think embreyonic stem cell research goes along those same lines.  Would I have another kid and get it hit by a bus just to make parts for experimentation?  NO.

pro...

I was worried there for a minute that this discussion [u]might[/u] become a nonproductive
thread![:D]

Eric The(ReligiousFreak)Hun[>]:)]

And here I thought it was a REproductive thread...

Like you even have to ask?

Yes to this, yes to human cloaning as a means of assisting reproduction.

This is not a abortion issue because a eight celled embryo cannot survive except as part of of the mothers reproductive system.

The common law in England always held that there was no child untill the quickening, i.e. the time when movement could be felt by the mother and the childs hearbeat could be heard.  Before that, no weregild had to be paid for the child, afterward it did- and therefore had the de-facto protection of the law as a individual.  There was no other interpretation of the begining of life amongst the English speaking peoples untill the 20th Century.

Yes, for the research. No to cloaning.

I oppose cloaning too, and I am not too crazy about clowning.  Cloning, however, is a different story...