Science is the engine of progress for a country (and humanity). It's what puts a country ahead of other countries and over the long term, it's what puts their economy ahead of other countries. To reject, hamper or restrict science is to launch a direct attack on a country's competitiveness.
If he's going to play the morality card, he should play it consistently. Science's most horrific invention is the nuclear weapon. It saves lives by taking lives, just like stem cell research (assuming you consider embryos to be lives, but let's assume that for now).
If you were going to call "morality timeout" on any area of science, it would surely be nuclear weapons research. Yet he seems to have no problems with all the talk of developing new nuclear weapons, those bunker busters and the like. It's inconsistent and hypocritical, and thus to my mind indefensible.
So which ethical line do you toe? Make funds available for research, and allow the families of these embryos the freedom to decide whether they can be used in research or not, ultimately benefitting millions of lives through the research? Or would you withhold federal funding on a fallacious religious belief, and condemn these embryos to destruction?
2006-07-14
05:16:11
·
13 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics