Stem cell research? Nuclear Energy?

Question

Stem cell research is definitely a positive on social life. Why did Bush veto it? Why forsake nuclear energy when it's the only option we have on the table once petroleum is used up? Other than nuclear radiation. Who else agrees?!

Of course, but nuclear energy will provide more for our nation. I strongly suggest using wind energy instead because 1. we don't have to use a lot of money for solar panels, and 2. hydropower will definitely cause some minor problems.

Answer 1

First, the party line. The belief that children are a gift from God is deeply rooted in Christianity. The possiblilty that reproduction is a biological mechanism for perpetuating any species, and therefore subject to control, as we do with other animal species, is anathema to Christian conservatives. Stem cell research requires embryos, which Bush's power base consider sacred.

CNN quotes Mr Bush; "I made [it] very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life, I'm against that," Bush told reporters. "Therefore if the bill does that, I will veto it."

Then, one of my pet theories. The eventual development of treatments that actually can cure many, even most diseases (something scientists have been forecasting for the fairly near future) will toll the death knell for the enormously lucrative pharmaceutical industry in this country. At the very least, it will substantially diminish their profits, unless they can develop and patent the treatments before anyone else. Just as oil companies don't want us weaned from our need for oil, pharmaceutical companies, less actively and obviously, don't want us weaned from our need for drugs.

Don't discount Republican ties to the private business sector when you consider this issue. The Republican party banks its true power in corporate America. Administrations may come and go, but corporate America is always there, and dominated by Republican party supporters.

Federal funds come from taxpayer dollars, and treatments developed with taxpayer monies are owned by the government, an entity not always in Republican control. Such treatments then fall under government jurisdiction, which then can decide whether to offer them to the public for free, or at a discounted rate.

Can you imagine what would happen if a federally funded lab announced they had cured Alzheimer's, but that the treatment would be prohibitively expensive for the average American suffering from the disease? Or a cure for prostate, or breast cancer? The public outcry would be enormous. Taxpayers, having funded the research, would expect to be able to reap the benefits, without having to sell everything they owned and mortgage the house.


I don't believe for a moment that embryonic stem cell research isn't happening in this country. After all, the wealthy and powerful suffer from diseases too. But, I believe the race is on to be the first to market real cures, and by withholding federal funding from the research, it ensures that such cures as may be forthcoming are controlled by the private sector. The same pharmaceutical companies who marketed AIDS drugs at prohibively expensive prices to poor countries decimated by the disease, will be setting the prices for the cure for heart disease, the #1 killer of Americans. Hooray for capitalism.

The nuclear issue is kind of a no-brainer, though. It's not the only option, far from it. And its got a huge downside, in nuclear waste contamination. I had to laugh, the other day, when I read that what has the government stumped right now is how to make a hazardous waste sign to post on disposal sites that will last 10,000 years and still be legible to whoever/whatever may still be around to read it. Widespread construction of clean energy sources (already viable technology) is our only true alternative.

Answer 2

Stem cell research is an ethical question....he only vetoed more federal funding.

Nuclear Energy is making a resurgence since no other viable energy source is as cheap and clean in regards to greenhouse gasses. Waste is an issue, but Yucca Mtn is a good short term answer....and was built based on the Oklo natural reactors in Africa....yeah that's right the earth actually had natural reactors at one time.

If you see that nuclear provides 20% of our nations energy and the plants are getting older every year...what is going to replace these? Wind and Solar....yeah right......no way, plus you will never see a utility put all their eggs in one basket. Nuclear is only viable option. Tidal, Wind, and solar are still way too inefficient for our energy needs or still need a lot of research. Nuclear is a proven technology that has one of the best safety records in the US.

Answer 3

The moral standard here is the principle of double effect. If a single action produces two effects, one good and one bad, how is the moral rectitude of that action to be evaluated? The principle of double effect states that, if the action is to be regarded as morally sound, the following conditions must apply: 1. The bad effect must not be a consequence of the good effect. 2. The bad effect must not be intended. 3. There must be proportionality. In the case of embryonic stem cell research, points 1 and 2 are clearly met. It is point 3 that is in question. Do the good effects (medical treatments) outweigh the clearly bad effects (termination of human life)? Catholicism has leaned heavily in the direction of, "No." Those who deny the humanity of a conceived child lean strongly the other way.

Answer 4

I think both fields are worthy of further reseearch. However, both have ancillary issues. Stem cell research ties into abortion since stem cells are harvested from that source. That is why Bush vetoed it. Nuckear power has security, safety, and environmental issues, but I am not sure (other than his connection with 'big oil' why Bush is not more supportive of it.

Answer 5

I think stem cells can be a use for all the aborted fetuses out there. Where do they go anyway?
Nuclear power, solar power, or hydro power will be all we have left once the petroleum is gone.

Answer 6

Most of my power comes from the coal fed plants that use up two trainloads of 100 coal hoppers each, per week!

Yeah, there's a 30 year old Nuclear plant that provides about 8% of our power...

Solar, in the Sunshine State? fuggetaboutit! Tidal generators? too 'new - age' for our aging elected officials!

Answer 7

Nuclear Energy is the very helpful for us. But here a big issue is their that is the radiation. Nuclear Reactors are adsorbs the Radition gases that are very harmful for our nature.

Answer 8

agree. its all cool.