Saturday, April 11, 2009
New Development on Stem Cell Debate
so this is just something I heard about on Rush and I thought would make an interesting addition to our earlier discussion about Obama's reversal on stem cell funding. I realize this is just one source, but this guy is a doctor and he said he talked to a bunch of experts, so it's definitely something to think about. I mean, if he's right, then what the heck are we doing if embryonic stem cells are actually more dangerous than this other solution he talked about? Why isn't Obama funding that research?
If I had to guess I'd say it's about his beliefs about when life begins and him trying to prove a point about how life doesn't matter one way or another before birth. I'm sure he wouldn't hesitate to put some sort of spin on this if it did become a big deal, but I think it would be totally transparent, just like the recent bowing fiasco with the Saudi king (I have more to say about that but i'll save it for another post). But then again, what isn't transparent political spin that comes out of the White House?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Small correction Jeff - because Obama undeniably supported infanticide as a State Senator in Illinois, I'm not sure he cares much about a baby's life even AFTER birth if that life accidentally trumped a woman's right to abort that life. Horribly sad, but true.
Anyway, this clip from Oprah all but confirms (to me, at least) that this new alternative method has much more promise, and avoids the moral problems as well. I wonder if she would have still invited Dr. Oz on her show if she knew beforehand that he was going to burst her bubble like that?
I think this is a great find Jeff. Hannity never said anything about it. At first I thought you were just casually watching Oprah in your spare time, but since you clarified you heard it on Rush (still think that might be a cover story for what you were really doing, come on Jeff we know you love Oprah), I don't think any less of you. I think it's exciting. I am not so bound to one position that I would reject medical advancement in the name of pride. I hope and suspect that federal funding would be available to that kind of research, if not, it should absolutely be. As for these leftover embryos...what do we do with them? Really? Freeze them? Destroy them? Has it gone too far that we should shut down fertility clinics? Even if the embryonic stem cell debate goes away, what to do with embryos left over after fertilization has not gone away. Are we morally obligated to recruit women to volunteer their uterus and incubate these leftover embryos and then adopt them off or open up orphanages? I mean the problem is still there, so as far as I see it, this shouldn't really make you guys feel that much better about what is going on. Tons of embryos will still be destroyed. Any ideas?
Nice cover Jeff, we all know you're a huge closet Oprah fan :) But Creighton brings up a good point. Here's my idea: I'd say (knowing full-well this would never happen) put the federal funding ban back on ES cell research, return ES cell research to the capable hands of private donors, don't shut down the fertility clinics, and instead provide the funds that would have been used for ES cell research to this new, more promising research method which doesn't involve human embryos. That way, you are respecting the wishes of those who would rather not see their tax dollars used to fund ES cell research while still furthering the very noble goals of curing those terminal diseases. How does that sound?
Post a Comment