US divided over stem cell research reversal – 09 Mar 09
Posted on July 9, 2009
Filed Under self treatment | 25 Comments
Scientists have welcomed plans by Barack Obama, the US president, to reverse his predecessor’s policies that restricted funding to stem cell research, but the planned move has also drawn criticism. Al Jazeera’s Roger Wilkinson reports on the emotional debate over the US administration’s approach to research that uses human embryonic stem cells.
Comments
25 Responses to “US divided over stem cell research reversal – 09 Mar 09”
Leave a Reply
Hello
I am a college student from Japan and for my sociology class, I made a survey regarding stem cell controversy. Survey only consists of 10qs and I hope everyone who interested about this topic will take it. It should take only a few minutes. Survey will be open till 7/8. Please go to my YouTube account and click a link to survey because I cannot post a link here.
Thank you for your cooperation.
I appose embryonic stem cell research for the most basic reason. It is a complete and udder failure, a waste of time and money. It has show exactly 0, yes 0 tangible results.
While Adult stem cell research has actually restored peoples ability to walk. See 8:20 in this video /watch?v=3Axkn8G18t8 .
Anyone who supports Embryonic SCR over Adult SCR is nothing but, a cure-blocker. ESCR gets all this hype over nothing. While ASCR which has cured ppl Today is ignored.
for those who oppose embryonic stem cells research…..listen here…u guys dont know how people with disease or paralysis or their relatives feel and going through their lives….especially those just became a paraplegia…their lives would never be the same…..and i’m one of them…
“Classically, conservatism is not about “old” ideas, but rather about “timeless” ideas” – UncleIrv2
I never cared too much for ideology labels (I don’t think they mean much anyway) but the notion of a “timeless” idea doesn’t make much sense to me. An idea so widely accepted earlier on can be considered an illusion afterwards, such as with how Einstein’s relativity changed people’s understanding of time. I reject all ideologies, but I prefer independent thought to this idea of “common sense.”
.
I warned you my fellow Christians, THE END IS COMING! Depart now from all form of unrighteousness such as fornication, homosexuality, pornography, watching violent entertainment, drug abuse, smoking, gambling, cursing, bullying, revelries, pursuit of money and idolatry etc. LEST YOU BE FOUND NOT WORTHY TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
A volcano situated in the US will erupt not far from now, when this happen you will know that this warning is from God.
.
Heh heh. They most certainly are. As for your definition of conservatism itself, well I wish the rest of those affiliated with your party (with whom I’ve had personal dealings) would be so intelligent as to explain themselves in this manor.
As I said, I do take the values that both parties have and adapt them to my own personal uses, with logic (or common sense) applied. I just tend to lean more towards the liberal front. But that doesn’t mean I can’t respect other’s points of view too.
It won’t be online until later this fall. It’s a personal project.
It’s intended as a place for analytic thinking on many controversial subjects. Management will be from a conservative perspective, but the goal will be to avoid “polemic” thinking at all costs. Intelligent criticism from all points of the political perspective will be vital to this goal.
I won’t give the url publicly yet, but you can PM me if it sounds interesting.
“…one of those who thinks…” LOL
You might be more conservative than you think. For me, conservatism is NOT about “ideology” as much as rejecting ALL ideologies for common sense.
Classically, conservatism is not about “old” ideas, but rather about “timeless” ideas, and being rooted in a sober view of human nature which renders one very skeptical of “trendy” solutions. Ever read Hayek or Sowell?
It might surprise you that I used to be a leftist. Converts are always the most zealous!
Simply put, I’m what you may rightfully call a moderate liberal (aka, one of those who thinks…lol). I take the extreme ideals of the main liberal front, look at them, tone them down to a state of normality if needed, then accept them (or not if I can’t do so). I also attempt this with conservative notions too (though, given my stance on things it’s a bit harder for me). Fact is, I don’t just accept anything, I actually take time & look at stuff first, something any political party should do.
Thank you. I find that reason can be a powerful tool. As to giving that respect to conservatives, I have no problem doing so. I do apologize for my fellow liberals who do not do this however.
As to the topic at hand; I cannot say that I disagree with you (in the fact that people should stand for their ideals). If the media were to suggest the same of the most out and out of the liberal front, I believe I’d react similarly. But I can understand the reasoning behind the idea >>>Continued>>>
No, I did not notice.
But, I fully agree with you (if on nothing else) that this comment system is deeply flawed. Some of us (myself and others with similar and differing viewpoints) have taken to P.M.ing each other. This allows for a nearly unlimited exchange in words and thoughts, but alas has the obvious flaw of becoming stagnant with only two input views, thus not allowing potentially stimulating thoughts to enter the conversation. BTW, thanks for the respect. What site is this by the way?
You may notice that my reply was placed outside this thread even though I responded within the thread. This happens often. The YouTube java-based comments feature is pathetically flawed. The 500 char limit is a pain too.
Anyway, I appreciate that you strive to base your points on logic, even though I disagree profoundly with many of your conclusions. I’m involved with a future site project that will feature debate on some of these issues. Send me a PM if you’re interested.
Although your conclusion differs from mine, I respect that you came to it through a process of reason. And this is all I ask from liberals, to extend that same respect to conservatives.
But to return to the original topic… We find laughable the media “template” that it would be pragmatic for the GOP to move to center. This is EXACTLY what doomed the GOP in 2004 and 2008. Conservatives stayed home because the GOP had abandoned true conservative principles for NeoCon milquetoast.
It’s fine, I understand how it can happen. I’ve done it myself, and have been put down for it. We’re human, we make mistakes.
You are right. Sorry.
>>>(Continued)
My point is, though it goes even against MY moral code, I realize that I do not share the same views as, say, the women who want abortions. I’m no politician, so I need cater to no one. Still, I know enough to respect the decisions sentient (ie: out of the womb) humans have made. This my not be equivocal to a threat to democracy, but it’s still a (minor if nothing else) threat to personal choices. This is my view anyway.
Fair enough. I’ll agree with you that there are some ethical issues in this subject. And yes, the labels do sort of sidestep question at hand. But simply put, my logical (just by my logic, not meaning to insult yours) stance states that the woman should have control over her body, not government (or anyone else for that matter). Personally though, I’d try and talk her out of it, seeing that I don’t find it the preferable action, rather a choice on reserve. (Continued next)>>>
For God’s sake, does anyone understand the difference between EMBRYONIC and NON-EMBRYONIC stem cells?
The type of stem cells you’re talking about (umbilical cord cells) are NOT embryonic. NO ONE is against using cord cells!!!
In fact, NO ONE is against ANY type of stem cells that have successfully cured people.
Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, have never successfully cured anyone yet, and it’s pure speculation whether they ever will.
(I’m ignoring that idiot)
You say “her body, her choice.” But would you assert the same rights for the unborn girl in her womb?
This is not meant as a cheap shot. My point is that there DOES EXIST a legitimate ethical dilemma on which reasonable people may disagree. Labeling pro-lifers as religious extremists is an ad-hominem which circumvents the question.
The truest enemies of democracy are those who are so assured of their position that they view the opposition as a threat to democracy.
Religion is not a bad thing, it’s when people take it to extremes that it becomes a dangerous weapon (well, this is true of anything used in political games). Abortion, for example, I believe is a basic right women have. “Her body, her choice.” Get enough Conservatives, and say goodbye to that one. Religious morals are good, but remember, not everyone likes the effects of a few individuals on the far right (or left to be fair). If that makes any sense (I had to come up with this on the fly)
Hey man, not cool. We’re having a civil debate here. No need for that. Speaking as a Democrat/Liberal here.
Firstly, no offense taken. Second, I don’t propose to outlaw any religiously based values, but rather prefer that they not take such a prevalent effect as they tend to within the Conservative party. I understand that the effect of the Church will never be rid of in politics, and to a degree prefer that. But it’s the level to which Conservatives take it that makes me worry about basic freedoms allotted to all U.S citizens. [Continued in next comment]>>>
I honestly mean no offense by this, but what you’re saying is intrinsically ridiculous.
First, when understood correctly within the context of the 1st Amendment, “separation of church and state” is a CONSERVATIVE principle.
Second, ALL elected officials are guided by their moral values–whether those values are founded on religion or atheism or whatever.
Do you propose to outlaw all religiously based values from the public forum? If so, you do NOT believe in separation of church and state.
(continued from last comment)…This problem is simply another version of what I’ve heard many republicans/conservatives call the current democratic regime…socialism. The only difference is in the reasoning (claimed morality). When others lives are run according to the total religious beliefs of those in power, nothing good can come of it. This is something the public must agree with or it will find a way to resist. That’s why I believe in political flexibility, and freedom in choices.
I agree, people should stand up for something. The question is what? Conservatives stand for old world values. While some of these I find applicable in many ways, others are truly outdated notions. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a confirmed Christian (and practicing), but I do truly believe in the separation of church and state (basic moral codes aside). When personal belief begins to affect a higher sociological order (ie: peoples decisions) then a problem arises…(continued next comment)…