Reply
Wed 9 Jun, 2004 07:25 am
Bush Opposes Using Embryos for Research
SEA ISLAND, Ga. (AP) -- Ronald Reagan's death from complications of Alzheimer's disease has not changed President Bush's stand against using embryos for stem cell research, Laura Bush said Wednesday.
Former first lady Nancy Reagan and others believe the use of stem cells from embryos could lead to cures for such illnesses as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Bush's executive order in August 2001, however, limited federal research funding for stem cell research to 78 embryonic stem cell lines then in existence.
"We need to balance the interest in science with moral issues," Mrs. Bush said on NBC's "Today" show, adding that there's going to be an increasing number of people suffering from the disease as the baby boom population ages.
Stem cells can be taken from days-old human embryos and then grown in a laboratory into lines or colonies. Embryos are destroyed when the cells are extracted, a process opposed by some people who link it to abortion.
In a letter to the president the day before Reagan died, 58 senators asked Bush to relax federal restrictions. The letter said only 19 of those lines are now available to researchers and those available are contaminated with mouse feeder cells, making their use for humans uncertain.
"We have to be really careful between what we want to do for science and what we should do ethically and the stem cell issue is certainly one of those issues that we need to treat very carefully," Mrs. Bush said on "The Early Show" on CBS.
On ABC's "Good Morning America," Mrs. Bush referred to alternatives to "abusing embryos" in research. "There are stem cell embryos ready that people can use for research, but it's a very delicate line," she said.
I wonder if those near and dear to him were stricken and felt feel the pain and anguish of those dreadful diseases the religious freak would relent. If that is what it takes may they be visited the sooner the better.
Embryos represent sacred human tissue, and as such should never be used for scientific research.
Miller
That sacred human tissue you speak of is languishing in fertility clinics and will be destroyed. If you believe it is sacred than you should believe that it would be better to be used for the betterment of Gods creatures.
As far as it being sacred that a bunch of religious hokum.
Miller
This is another instance where people of religion are foisting there religious beliefs on the rest of us.
Between his pro-war and pro-killing stance and his anti-stem-cell-research policies Bush has demonstrated his inability to have compassion. As long as he's in office don't expect any medical or scientific breakthroughs.
I will never understand the moral and ethical dilemna here. If the embryos are not living human beings, then what is the problem?
au1929 wrote:Miller
That sacred human tissue you speak of is languishing in fertility clinics and will be destroyed. If you believe it is sacred than you should believe that it would be better to be used for the betterment of Gods creatures.
As far as it being sacred that a bunch of religious hokum.
I'm sorry, that's your opinion.
Miller, if embryos are sacred human tissue, then why aren't dead people?
Miller
Is there any reason other than that of misguided religion to call it sacred.
This is one of the reasons that I am less than thrilled with Bush. I think that, with stem cell research, science is on the brink of many breakthroughs in the treatment of disease.
It takes a world leader, with his head in the dark ages, and his hand on the Bible, to stifle real scientific progress. Phooey!
Other nations will have to carry on the research for now. If I were a top scientist in the field, I would consider moving to a more enlightened environment until a smarter president came along.
Can I ask one question?
If embryos aren't human enough to merit rights under the law, then how can they be human enough to be used as spare parts?
We use blood as spare parts, bone, etc. Why not stem cells?
Good point Edgar. I certainly support the use of blood transfusions and bone transplants. But you didn't address my question.
It's not like you cut off some part of a person and put a stem cell or embryo in its place. The question is pretty meaningless.
I don't think questions about rights are meaningless at all. In fact, I think questions about human rights are among the most important questions that can be asked.
kickycan wrote:Miller, if embryos are sacred human tissue, then why aren't dead people?
The bodies of the deceased are sacred. That's one reason, why so many individuals worked so hard to recover body parts following the events at the WTC on 9/11/01.
edgarblythe wrote:Other nations will have to carry on the research for now. If I were a top scientist in the field, I would consider moving to a more enlightened environment until a smarter president came along.
If you decide to move to another Country, you'll have to leave your NSF and NIH grants ( if you should have any ) behind in the USA.
kickycan wrote:I will never understand the moral and ethical dilemna here. If the embryos are not living human beings, then what is the problem?
Embryos, to the educated Biologist, are living humans, derived from live human tissue.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace