Thursday, June 21, 2007

good for him

Regardless of what you think of the President and his handling of the war (I think I'll stay away from that issue!), he's to be commended for his bucking what they say is the majority of Americans on this embryonic stem cell research issue. Here's the story of his latest veto. . .

SanLuisObispo.com 06/21/2007 Bush vetoes embryonic stem cell bill

My understanding based on my light reading on the subject is that there are a variety of other very promising stem cell therapies that are not "embryonic" and therefore do not cause the killing of a child. The president is rightly encouraging research of these alternative therapies.

Unfortunately the media is not usually great at drawing these important distinctions and paints the president with a broad brush as opposed to stem cell research. He is supportive of stem cell research, but opossed to embryonic stem cell research. Important distinction.

The Biblical doctrine of the sanctity of life guides us in these matters. It is not right for us to take a human life in order to save another one. These matters of life and death are in God's hands.

What say you?

3 comments:

andy gibson said...

I think it was a good move. The media is too flat out stupid and busy filling their own agendas to be able to distinguish between "stem cell research" and "embryonic stem cell research". Everything is one and the same to the them, and it misinforms the readers, especially the readers that take everything as fact and don't critically think for themselves.

Sorry, media rant over. But yes, there are other ways out there.

Here is one website I have glanced through before that makes some solid points:

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/polisci/index.html

Granted, somebody could look at it and say "they're biased, they're sponsored by so-and-so." So be it if that argument surfaces here as it very well may be. Read the website for what it is and think for yourself. Besides, show me a website on this issue that isn't biased and sponsored with alternative motives in mind? Any topic for that matter.....

freewill said...

You're right, then (or so God have (said)

You said: "My understanding based on my light reading on the subject is that there are a variety of other very promising stem cell therapies that are not "embryonic"

You understand NOTHING. There are no therapies yet, there are different lines of investigation, involving stem cells, one of these lines is the embryonic one. The one which is promising results by now.

You said:
"and therefore do not cause the killing of a child."

There is no "killing of a child", you integrist. There's an embryo, already discarded for other uses (basically for assisted reproduction), which will never become a child, that is donated to investigation. If not destinated to investigation, it will stay in the "freezer" until the freezer is switched off (someday)

Now try to explain to people who are in a wheelchair, that we (humans), don't investigate all the possible solutions because there are people (you) who think that these lines of investigation are pecaminous...

Oh, when will you stop messing in our lives? Praise your god if you want, I'll be the first to defend your right to do that. But don't try to direct the way we want to live our lifes.

You said:
"The president is rightly encouraging research of these alternative therapies."

You president could save A LOT MORE REALLY EXISTING LIFES by doing things like these:

- Leaving IRAQ
- Supporting a real Peace Plan for Middle West
- Controlling the weapon market
- Controllin the traffic of Organs
- Accepting Kyoto Protocol
- Promoting investigation on clean energies
- and so on...

Excuse me for my bad use of your language, I'm european.

Peace.

Suzette said...

Actually there was a great article in the Tribune a few weeks back about the great break-throughs in Adult Stem Cell research, where actual cures have been used sucessfully. Unlike embryonic stem cell research which has yet to produce one single cure.

It was a funny angle. There was speculation that there was some "conspiracy" in the fact that a number of articles were published by journals just before our congress voted on expanding embrionic stem cell lines. These studies showed that destroying embryo's is not necessary or even effective in producing cures.

I like how the Tribune article concluded. Basicly if there was a "conspiracy" it could not have been one by man but God. Isn't that such a remarkable take by any news media?