Redstate

essentially opposition to embryonic stem cell research equals opposition to any and all stem cell research.

Isn't he only opposed to government funding of embryonic stem cell research? If one of the evil pharmaceuticals wanted to do it for the possible future $$ payoff that would be okay right? If so, then the sophistry of the MSM is even worse than you indicated.

I may believe what the "actual scientists" have said, except for two significant caveats.

First, if there weren't billions of dollars in potential funding at stake for scientists, I might be more ready to believe them--if you can convince the government to give you billions to research cold fusion, you can get a group of scientists to agree. With the science lobby out there, it's so hard to take them seriously as they've become just another interest group trying to get a piece of the federal budget.

Second, the mere "belief" that they should be studied isn't enough. There isn't any evidence at all that embryonic stem cells can lead to cures. There's just speculation, hypotheticals, and conjecture. It's not like there's progress that's been made on embryonic stem cells, so now we should continue to reach real breakthroughs. After billions of dollars spent from different States, private research, and international dollars, there's nothing.

that Mr. Fox is being used by others, much like another famous actor named Mr. Reeve was who was injured in a horse riding accident and paralyzed. False promises were made, and for Mr. Reeve it is now too late.

I say full speed ahead on adult stem cell research. But instead of arguing whether we should spend government funding on embryonic stem cell research, we should be asking if it should be permitted at all. History shows its a very small step to making buttons out of indian bones and lamp shades out of the skin of murdered Jews. All that is necessary is to decide that some human lives are expendable. Soon the age of those expendable human lives ceases to matter.

This is not just about morals. By most any measure, adult stem cells have shown more promise than embryonic ones. Adult stem cells are being short changed. It is not just that some scientist see greater federal grant funding for embryonic stem cells or even more potential new publishable research. There is also the hidden agenda of abortion in all this mess. Embryonic stem cells are a nice way to justify abortion to people who might not otherwise support it. Stem cell research is being politicized by the left and in a fundamentally dishonest way, especially when they do not make the distinction between embryonic and adult stem cells.

Talk about pots calling kettles.

"Stem cell research is being politicized by the left and in a fundamentally dishonest way, especially when they do not make the distinction between embryonic and adult stem cells."

The Social Conservative wing of the party is doing a pretty good job of politicizing the issue also, as is their right and is entirely consistent with a Right to Life position. I don't denigrate their views or insult them for holding those views, but please show the same respect for those in your own party who disagree with the point of view. I for one am not in favor of this research as a side door way to increase abortions.

Many Republicans disagree with the ban, starting with Nancy Reagan as an example.

_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !

What is our hidden agenda? Social Conservatives are defending themselves against dishonest attacks. It is dishonest not to distingish between embyonic and adult stem cells. It is also dishonest to call the law that Bush signed a "ban". Bush and a lot of other social conservatives went out of their way to reasonably compromise on embryonic stem cells. There is no ban on private funding. There is not even a ban on federal funding, only a restriction to current embryonic stem cell lines. All of these things are compromises yet we still get bashed over the head by people like you.

KyleH

You play the part of a victim well with comments like "bashed over the head", did you learn how to play the victim from our friends on the left. In my book, honest respectful disagreement and dialog about our differences is not that, it is disagreement on an issue, nothing more, nothing less.

I completely understand the Right to Life position of all life begins at conception, and embryos would most definitely fall into that category. The honestly held point of view on this matter from the Social Conservative side of the house is not one that I would in good conscious attack, I may not agree with it, but I have respect for the position and those that hold it. I will agree to disagree with it however.

As to a reasonable compromise, reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder I suppose. What you may consider a reasonable compromise may not be what I or others consider reasonable. One of those areas by the way where we may agree to disagree.

_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !

Well, you have reinforced one of the DNC's most dishonest talking points on stem cell research. You referred to "the ban". There is no ban. Embryonic stem cell research is subsidised by the federal government.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

YOu argue that the social conservatives aren't compromising by A-not outright banning the research (they only restrict Federal funding) and B Not fully restricting it, because some funding goes towards existing stem cell lines.

So, the social conservatives have already moved two steps towards a compromise, what compromise do you offer?

Try this as a compromise.

Couples undergoing IVF who have left over embryos which will be otherwise destroyed are allowed to choose to donate to science, with some provisions.

1) Couples in registered IVF programs only
2) No financial gain for the couples
3) Advice and counseling offered prior to making the donation with an option to donate to other groups which will seek to place embryos with groups who wish to adopt.
4) Compliance audits and tracking of donations

Not a prefect

_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !

taxpayer.

At the moment, any scientist can raise funds, and research with embryos, what they currently don't have a right to, and should not have a right to is taxpayer dollars.

If somebody feels strongly about embryonic research, they should pull out their checkbook and write a check.

Also, I would like to see dollars focused more on the two types of research that don't require the destruction of life-adult and cord blood stem cells. Why don't we put more cash into these, and see where they go first rather than putting all our eggs in the embryonic basket.

Just

You have a valid point on spending tax dollars of someone who may object to something on moral grounds, but that is one heck of a slippery slope.

What about Quakers, should they be allowed to not have their tax dollars go to fight a war? Last I knew Quakers were against all forms of war...bit of a bad example, but it comes quickly to mind.

I'd probably agree with you on the point but take a different track. My solution would be to allow a check off box for those that wish to pay an extra amount of tax, and have it earmarked for stem cell research. You might disagree with spending your tax dollars for this research, but maybe I'll kick in an extra $10 to fund it. This approach would tend to blow up over time, check boxes for all sorts of things that people want to see funded but does not. If it was extra taxes to be paid to support it, too bad if the 1040 got ugly.

_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !

The Constitution specifically gives the federal government the right/duty/prerogative to wage war. It makes no mention of scientific experimentation.

Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats

SteveLA

I thought you were a libertarian and as such would oppose any government confiscation of the fruits of a citizen's labor to conduct scientific research, since same is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government?

And checkoff boxes on this puny of an issue? Where would it all end if we had checkoff boxes on every issue more significant that this?

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

SteveLA

I thought you were a libertarian and as such would oppose any government confiscation of the fruits of a citizen's labor to conduct scientific research, since same is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government?

And checkoff boxes on this puny of an issue? Where would it all end if we had checkoff boxes on every issue more significant that this?

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Or better yet, somebody like Michael J Fox could set up a charity that everyone so inclined can send their $10 to, leaving the Federal government out of loop entirely. I would reinterate the points others raised about the national defense being a constitutional obligation of the Federal government while throwing money at this or any other piece of pork (which is what this really is) is completely extraconstitional.

A better example would be if a group of people objected to paying for a crucifix submerged in urine or paying to air the teletubbies or paying "disaster" payments to farmers every year.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

I for one am not in favor of this research as a side door way to increase abortions.

But some supporters certainly are. The way this is touted as cure-all for just about every chronic disease out there suckers a lot of well meaning people into supporting federal funding for this research. It's talked about as if this is a done deal. All we need to do is throw some federal money at this and in a few years we'll have cures for everything!

I am suspicious of the claims. If these cells are as much of a magical elixir as they are portrayed to be, no lack of funding from the US government will keep it from market. The reality is that they are likely over-hyped and there is much less substance there than we are being lead to believe. It is this pro-abortion lobby we can thank for the over-hyping.

---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

then funding shouldn't be a problem-private investers should be happy to get a piece of the embryonic stem cell market.