Why would someone like Michael 'Shakes' Fox support a bill that destroyed human life when he knows there is no chance it can help him... Is it a case of 'misery enjoys company'?
And don't give me any of this 'he is sick' crap because for all you know I am, or any of us could develop that. I would like to see Mohammed Ali's view on that, now there is a man.
2007-01-19 03:31:20 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Political agendas being just that!... Truth is with holding Federal money on promisingly lucrative medical research inspires corporate competitive resources to achieve what bogged down, extend as long as they can grant government funded entities...Who would avoid a cure to get a pay check.
Morality aside, Free Enterprise has always out out preformed government control.
Stem cell research is now and has ALWAYS been perfectly legal...
The leftist lie in this, as it has always has been is...Government provides for the individual...Truth is the individual is now and has always been superior to ANY government.
2007-01-19 03:59:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Scientists will inform you that embryonic stem cellular analyze can yield a lot more effective then individual. and there's no authorities funding for embryonic, it truly is why more effective has been performed with individual stem cellular analyze. And the embryos they use are being thrown away besides, so why do you care in the experience that they use it for technology. Why no longer get mad a the fertility clinics that throw them away? And the authorities did ban any new embryonic stem cellular lines from getting used, so that is in part banned. And those that they had from earlier are previous and they are hesitant to apply them considering they could't use any new ones. a touch more effective analyze might want to have helped you.
2016-10-15 11:01:50 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My brother, not a celebrity, could have benefitted greatly from embryonic stem cell reasearch. This research was conducted, and successfully rebuilt a bridge across a severd spinal cord, in mice. During this research, a gag order was placed due to the pro 'life' movement. It has never been lifted, meaning that research was only published for a short time, in 1996. It exists, but hiding it from people doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. And it was never abortions that were used, only fertilized eggs grown in petri dishes up until 8 cell divisions (a blastocyte) from clinics that would have otherwise destroyed them. Why don't you guys spend more time protesting fertility clinics? And I will let my brother (a quadriplegic, and as a result of immoblility also a double amputee) know that you value a fertilized egg that would have otherwise been destroyed, over his life. I'm sure you will get his vote, just like you fought so hard for this right to accessibility to buildings. I hope you are a religious person...
2007-01-19 03:40:50 · answer #3 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Just because they have not yet found any cures with embryonic stem cell research yet due to the lack of funding for research does not in any way mean that there will never be cures found.
It took 60 years of research to find some cures for cancer.
Stem cell research is still in it's infancy comparitavely.
Furthermore, most embryonic stem cells come from the left over frozen embryos from invetro fertilization procedures that will never be used for implantation.
I take it that you would rather see these left over embryos just thrown in the trash as medical waste. Does throwing a embryo in the trash somehow make the embryo less dead?
2007-01-19 03:41:07 · answer #4 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I feel if "the life" was just going to be thrown in the trash why not use it to create new life elsewhere? Nobody thinks about that.
Now they've found that stem cells can be found other areas that won't have to harm anything.
As for Michael J. Fox, unless you are in his body you should not judge. Celebrities use there "status" to push for lots of causes. If we did hold them up on pedestals then they wouldn't have the voice to use towards us to say what they want/have to say.
Think about that next time you buy an enquirer, people mag. or watch Entertainment tonight or whatever......
2007-01-19 03:52:23 · answer #5 · answered by starlight 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
misery enjoys company... I suppose that's why you're here...
it's too bad we can't cure diseases because of stupid political rhetoric. He's looking for a cure, maybe not just for himself but for other people who will suffer what he is suffering. It's a good cause and stem cell research is not killing anybody. If a cell cluster doesn't like it, it should say something. Maybe you can debate where stem cells should come from; these days they're getting them from multiple sources and they don't just come from abortion. I care about people, don't call me a murderer, but I do NOT care for the rights of a 16-cell cluster to remain frozen when the life of a human could be saved.
2007-01-19 03:40:36 · answer #6 · answered by Aleksandr 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Michael J. Fox was very dishonest in his November political commercial.
He claimed the Jim Talent was "against" stem cell research, which was NONSENSE. Talent supported ADULT stem cell research, not EMBRYONIC, and with very good reason.
Fox made it seem as if Talent's opponent was going to open the floodgates to cures, which is also nonsense.
Total cures/treatments using adult stem cells: 72.
Total using embryonic: ZERO.
Ultimately, this issue is about abortion. Libs do not want the embryo to have any value whatsoever, and the last thing they want is some pro-lifer asking the obvious question: if we can protect the unborn from research, why not protect them from abortion?
2007-01-19 03:40:57 · answer #7 · answered by C = JD 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
I wonder what their position is now that it has been found that amniotic stem cells are just as good as embryonic stem cells, and don't require the destruction of human life?
2007-01-19 03:44:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Not being in Mr. Fox's position, I don't want to comment on his motives, but I have to believe that he fervently desires a cure and any way to achieve that cure couldn't come fast enough for him. I'd hate to even call him selfish because I have no idea of the anguish he faces every day.
2007-01-19 03:35:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I am not for stem cell research, but read the other day that they are developing a way to remove get stem cells from a placenta. I would be in favor of that, but would not be in favor of anything that encourages abortion. If we can harvest stem cells without abortion, I would be for it.
2007-01-19 03:42:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋