Once again Bush does his best to set us way back...

[eclectics]

I have no issues with allowing things I find immoral to still be legal. I see no reason for my morals to be the law of the land.

You should cut and paste that one, Jenny. It works on more than one thread here.

 

[Fitswimmer]

You should cut and paste that one, Jenny. It works on more than one thread here.

I want it as a TAG!!!

 

[JMD]

No one is stopping PRIVATE or STATE funding of research.

I agree 100%. Its not an issue of morality, its just another thing the federal government has no business being involved in.

 

[cardaway]

My religion has a lot of moral beliefs out of the mainstream. It's pretty much always been that way for Jews. It's pretty easy to view personal morals and legal rights as seperate things... If My moral code says shellfish is an *abomination* I just don't eat it.. I have no desire to try to stop others from eating it..
That's petty much where I come from..If something goes against my moral code,I don't do it... As long as something is not harmful to innocent people, I have no qualms with it being legal.

Maybe if a Jewish person became POTUS and started trying to make everybody live by Jewish law, it might actually sink in for some folks.

 

[Charade]

Don't mix George W. Bush in with the real heroes of this country (i.e Coast Guard, National Guard, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines etc.) who defend this country and keep us safe. Bush waited days before he let these fine men and women do their jobs. The blood is on his hands alone.

Hmmm.... you're "tone" sounds familiar. Reincarnation?

 

[cardaway]

I agree 100%. Its not an issue of morality, its just another thing the federal government has no business being involved in.

Do you feel that way for all funding or just things you don't agree with?

 

[Fitswimmer]

Maybe if a Jewish person became POTUS and started trying to make everybody live by Jewish law, it might actually sink in for some folks.

WHAT??? NO BACON??? ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

Kidding! Actually, I'm starting to think that I want the next President to be an athiest and all this stuff will come to a screeching halt.

 

[reeeoga]

The key is that I wouldn't say I would impose my morals over everybody elses.

Somebody already posted my feelings exactly so I'll just repeat those...

Personal morals should have no bearing on the decisions of the POTUS. That position is for doing what is best for the country as a whole. How does equal access to research tools hurt the country?

If I am remembering correctly Bush ran saying he would oppose Embryonic Stim Cell Research, so people voted for him knowing he would not let it happen. I see this issue as him actually doing what he said he would.

I would like to know why something that has shown very little actual results should be expanded. Adult Stem Cell Research has shown results, why aren't we expanding that area?

Diverting money from a promising area, like Adult Stem Cells, to an area of low results, like Embryonic Stem Cells does hurt the country.

And a FYI (and only meant as an FYI): my daughter is a Type 1 Diabetic. I have a very personal interest in Stem Cell Research.

 

[reeeoga]

WHAT??? NO BACON??? ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

Kidding! Actually, I'm starting to think that I want the next President to be an athiest and all this stuff will come to a screeching halt.

Turkey Bacon is very good!

Even if the next Pres is an Athiest, this topic would not go away. It would probably get even hotter.

 

[cardaway]

No worries. This country would elect a black Muslim POTUS before they would elect an athiest.

 

[JMD]

Do you feel that way for all funding or just things you don't agree with?

I would say the same thing about most funding. The Federal government is way too big as it is. For me, it isn't a moral or religious issue, I never claimed it was. I have no problem with stem cell research, I just don't want the government paying the bill.

 

[eclectics]

Diverting money from a promising area, like Adult Stem Cells, to an area of low results, like Embryonic Stem Cells does hurt the country.

That's just your opinion. Please don't state that as if it were fact. The jury is still very much out on that one. Many scientists have different conclusions. From what I have read, I find both groups to be equally promising for different diseases.

 

[reeeoga]

Do you feel that way for all funding or just things you don't agree with?

I do not mean this as an attack, I just want to know.

Cardaway it sounds like you are dismissing others morals objections because they don't fit your morals. Is it ok for you to decide that your morals are more important than someone elses who disagrees with you? Some consider the destruction of an embryo as murder. I assume you do not. Does it make it right that you should force your moral views on those who disagree?


Boy that sounds like a bunch of loaded questions

 

[Charade]

That's just your opinion. Please don't state that as if it were fact. The jury is still very much out on that one. Many scientists have different conclusions. From what I have read, I find both groups to be equally promising for different diseases.

Hmm... I (and many others) feel exactly the same way about "global warming". But according to Gore, the debate is over.

 

[reeeoga]

That's just your opinion. Please don't state that as if it were fact. The jury is still very much out on that one. Many scientists have different conclusions. From what I have read, I find both groups to be equally promising for different diseases.

I have only found one Embryo Stem Cell Research that shows promise. Please point me to the others. BTW that area was in Eyesight.

 

[cardaway]

I would say the same thing about most funding. The Federal government is way too big as it is. For me, it isn't a moral or religious issue, I never claimed it was. I have no problem with stem cell research, I just don't want the government paying the bill.

I actually could accept that. Cutting all similar federal funding might even be the solution given all the back and forth about what is accepable and not acceptable. Maybe sometimes the solution is to throw the baby away with the bath water.

 

[cardaway]

I do not mean this as an attack, I just want to know.

Cardaway it sounds like you are dismissing others morals objections because they don't fit your morals. Is it ok for you to decide that your morals are more important than someone elses who disagrees with you? Some consider the destruction of an embryo as murder. I assume you do not. Does it make it right that you should force your moral views on those who disagree?


Boy that sounds like a bunch of loaded questions

I'm going to stick to this issue and remind folks that in most cases even our own law makers do not consider it murder. In fact I do find it quite questionable when people throw that term out considering there is very little to back it up. People throw that term around for a reason, and that reason could get you points aorund here unless you word it correctly.

On the bigger scale, I find morals to be very subjective and people shoudl remember that when deciding for others and making laws. There was a great post recently that went into detail about only making laws to prohibit things that cause harm. I agree with it compelely. I would ask anybody that doesn't agree if they would like to have to comply with the morals of people from other cultures or religions. I seriously doubt they would.

 

[tedhowe]

I really, REALLY, REALLY hate to agree with this president, but I supported his decision the first time he vetoed this and I agreee with him this time.

I'm whole heartedly support stem cell research - it has lots of potential to provide therapies.

BUT, where this becomes a moral issue is in the Federal government funding the research. There are some people (although it may be a small number of people) who are legitimately morally opposed to this type of research on the basis of it being the destruction of human life.

In that case, I think it is immoral to force someone to support (through the distribution of their taxes paid to the federal government) is a really grey moral area.

Let the individual states and/or private funding handle the research money.

 

[reeeoga]

I'm going to stick to this issue and remind folks that in most cases even our own law makers do not consider it murder. In fact I do find it quite questionable when people throw that term out considering there is very little to back it up. People throw that term around for a reason, and that reason could get you points aorund here unless you word it correctly.

On the bigger scale, I find morals to be very subjective and people shoudl remember that when deciding for others and making laws. There was a great post recently that went into detail about only making laws to prohibit things that cause harm. I agree with it compelely. I would ask anybody that doesn't agree if they would like to have to comply with the morals of people from other cultures or religions. I seriously doubt they would.

I don't know if I understand the first paragraph. Could you restate it?

For the second paragraph: Morals have to be subjective, if they were not then we wouldn't have much if any free will. And I do very much agree we need to understand those who have differning morals than "I" do (invert your name for I). We also need to try to be accomadating to those of differning morals/religions/cultures.

 

[profdsny]

Yep, our pro-life president. Won't support stem-cell research, but has no problem killing 100,000+ Iraqi civivilians, not to mention letting citizens of his own country die (can you say "Hurricane Katrina"?). Wonder what would happen if one of the Bush Twins got leukemia?

Never mind that he was the lord-high executioner of the country with Texas death penalties.