Discrepancies within Stem Cell Approval
Apparently Obama has decided to sign ‘an executive order Monday repealing a Bush-era policy that limited federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research.’ While I read the article from CNN, I couldn’t help but notice a couple of inconsistencies in the ideals of the quoted supporters of such an action.
Barack Obama: "In this case, I believe the two [sound science and moral values] are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research -- and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly."
[Comment] I assume we are just not responsible enough to have the humanity and conscience to exercise our faith in ensuring the unborn child also does not suffer and is cared for.
Nancy Reagan: "Countless people, suffering from many different diseases, stand to benefit from the answers stem cell research can provide. We owe it to ourselves and to our children to do everything in our power to find cures for these diseases."
[Comment] I assume we are to allow the death (or destruction, as some put it) or suffering of some children to benefit the children chosen to live, since apparently a cure for a disease is more important than the life of an unborn child.
Faith and responsibility….indeed…I would say America needs some.
Barack Obama: "In this case, I believe the two [sound science and moral values] are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research -- and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly."
[Comment] I assume we are just not responsible enough to have the humanity and conscience to exercise our faith in ensuring the unborn child also does not suffer and is cared for.
Nancy Reagan: "Countless people, suffering from many different diseases, stand to benefit from the answers stem cell research can provide. We owe it to ourselves and to our children to do everything in our power to find cures for these diseases."
[Comment] I assume we are to allow the death (or destruction, as some put it) or suffering of some children to benefit the children chosen to live, since apparently a cure for a disease is more important than the life of an unborn child.
Faith and responsibility….indeed…I would say America needs some.
11 comments:
There is no discrepancy here.
Embryos are collective cells which have been fertilized for research purposes. Results gleaned from these experiments will go a long way in potentially curing a lot of debilitating diseases, such as Parkinson's disease and diabetes.
Real people suffer from real diseases. Obama has done the right thing, instead of pandering to morons from the Religious Right.
Like I said before, the Americans have voted for a great President this time round.
Beast FCD
"....since apparently a cure for a disease is more important than the life of an unborn child."
First of all, a fetus is not a child, just as eggs are not chicken wings.
Here we have two moral equivalents: Either we choose to alleviate the suffering of real adults, or reject science in favor of imaginary babies.
I would say the rational way is to choose the former. If you have had the chance to witness a love one waste away with something as heinous as Parkinson's, you will understand why stem cell research is so important.
Beast FCD
Let me ask you a question, Tim. You don't have to post it here, just to spare you the brushes, but you can email me (Which I am sure you still remember).
Say, one day, the doctor tells you that you have been diagnosed with muscular atrophy. Now suppose there is a cure for it, and the cure is derived from embryonic stem cell research.
Will you:
1. Refuse the treatment because you think the manner the cure was derived has come from the deaths of supposedly "unborn babies"?
2. Refuse treatment and pray for a bloody miracle?
3. Accept the treatment just like the rest of the hypocritical Christians I meet everyday?
Just tell me the truth. Don't give me some crap excuse that you cannot answer supposed questions, like you did the last time I ask you an uncomfortable question.
Just the cold, hard truth will do.
Beast FCD
And yes, one more thing: You do have a great President. You should be grateful that he got voted, not that sick joke of a Mc Cain, who is trying his darnest best to stop the stimulus packages.
He's done a great job in overturning silly and devastating Bush policies: Overturning restrictions on stem cell research, drafting a time frame to stop the hemorrhaging in Iraq, trying his best to give Americans jobs in a crisis that was no fault of his, and revamping the education system.
Be grateful to Obama. Not Jebus.
Beast FCD
First of all Beast, I would like to ask why would the cure have to come from ‘embryonic stem cell research?’ A brief reading of internet articles turns up one from National Geographic News from April 6, 2006 (here). According to the article, it shares how ‘stem cells from umbilical cord blood—once thought capable only of turning into blood cells—may be able to grow into other kinds of cells as well.’ And, apparently in 2006 it was said, ‘Today doctors use cord blood cells to treat about 70 diseases, mostly anemias or cancers of the blood, such as leukemias and lymphomas.’
With this information, I find it odd that researchers would still be so eager to end the life of unborn children, rather than simply continue the research whereby no one would be harmed in the process of helping others. Seems like a better option to me.
So, your question to me is set in a way that does not allow all of the options, so as to try and place me in answering a hypothetical question without all of the details. But, to answer your question without all the options and not currently in such a situation, the best I can give is that my current standing is that I hope I would refuse treatment that would cause the death or harm of another when (1) there is other options and (2) the other person doesn’t have a choice.
As for #2, of course I would pray, as should every Christian during our daily lives; for prayer is communicating with God, not just in times of need, but in praising and thanking Him also.
As for as Obama, I do not find it surprising that a person of your mindset would agree with his ideals and believe him to be doing what is best for the country. Problem is personal option based on a lack or dismissal of facts, clouded by an obscure view of things, oft times leads to an incorrect understanding.
Tim
Wrong answer.
Umbilical cord blood is already utilized for certain diseases, but there are obvious limitations, unlike fertilized embryos. This is because fertilized embryos contain genetic material that have already been proven to develop into potential organ cells.
You are again avoiding my question: If, say, you suffer from a debilitating disease that was derived from embryonic stem cell research, WILL YOU OPT OUT? Don't avoid the question.
With regards to Obama, he's already done a real good job. Action speaks much, much louder than words.
Beast FCD
And thanks to Obama, your American soldiers are going to get out of iraq. Be grateful for that. Or maybe you are one of those morons who think fertilized embryos are more important than adult soldiers?
Beast FCD
Just tell me: Will you or will you not accept a cure derived from embryonic stem cell research for yourself, or even your family members?
Yes or no, Tim. Stop being a coward and run away.
Beast FCD
"...ensuring the unborn child also does not suffer and is cared for."
The stage at which embryonic stem-cell research occurs the "unborn child" has not even developed nerve cells. So we can safely assume there will be no "suffering".
Beast: You are again avoiding my question: If, say, you suffer from a debilitating disease that was derived from embryonic stem cell research, WILL YOU OPT OUT?
Tim: Please review my above comment.
Beast: Action speaks much, much louder than words.
Tim: Indeed.
Beast: And thanks to Obama, your American soldiers are going to get out of iraq.
Tim: Obama will be sending them to Afghanistan.
Larro: So we can safely assume there will be no "suffering".
Tim: And we can safely assume they will not be cared for either.
I did, Tim. Your answer is very ambiguous. All I need is a yes or no.
"...the best I can give is that my current standing is that I hope I would refuse treatment that would cause the death or harm of another when (1) there is other options and (2) the other person doesn’t have a choice."
So you "hope" to refuse treatment? Is that a no???
Actually, sending troops in Afghanistan is the right thing to do. America cannot manage two theaters of war at the same time without bankrupting the state. Iraq was a war fought because of oil. Afghanistan is a legitimate war based on terror.
And besides, both wars were initiated by Bush, not Obama. Get that right.
Beast FCD
Post a Comment