Let me start by saying that I am not linking to this article because I agree nor because I disagree. I simply don’t know enough about the stem cell research debate to judge whether or not it is good or bad to perform the research or limit money for doing so. I am linking to this article that is critical of Bush because I find the argument put forth compelling and intelligent, and it shows a view of the situation that I had not considered before.
Over at Salon.com, Scott Rosenberg makes a good case for the claims behind the stem cell research veto being bogus. I’m still thinking about this and trying to decide how I feel about the whole issue. I need to learn more about stem cell research and what limits, if any, the 2001 funding stops caused, as well as what gains we can realistically expect if stem cell research is increased.
President Bush appears poised for the first veto of his presidency. The cause that has finally pushed him to reject Congressional legislation? An attempt to expand funding for stem cell research that Bush hobbled back in 2001.
For millions of Americans, the potential fruits of stem cell research — in the form of cures to dangerous diseases — are a serious matter with grave personal import. For President Bush, the issue has always served as a political football.
On the one hand, Bush argues that the destruction of human embryos (microscopic organisms made up of a few cells) is a kind of killing. His press spokesman, Tony Snow, adopting the supercharged cant of anti-abortion activists, referred to it recently as “murder.” In order to stop such “murder,” Bush agreed in 2001 to limit all federal funding of stem cell research to a handful of pre-existing “lines” of cells — cells that had been created specifically for research. His argument was, let’s not use tax dollars to pay for the destruction of more embryos for the sake of research.
Here is why Bush’s position is a joke: Thousands and thousands of embryos are destroyed every year in fertility clinics. They are created in petri dishes as part of fertility treatments like IVF; then they are discarded.
Hmmmmm. To my eye, this is a well written article. I think it’s worth reading, regardless of which side of the issue you fall on. The above snip is substantial and informative, but not all of the article. Follow the link and read for yourself.
[tags]Stem cell research, Bush veto[/tags]