Is Bush really hurting people by putting restrcitions on stem cells?

Question

Here is a very interesting article that says so.
http://www.medsocial.com/blog.aspx?blogaction=viewblog&show=339

Answer 1

He sure is. There is HUGE potential in stem cell research for curing genetic diseases, brain/nerve damage, birth defects, etc. When are religious fanatics going to cut this "It's morally wrong!!!1111" s.hit and allow scientists to make in advances in stem cells in order to improve the lives of millions with the above problems?

Answer 2

No.

The government does not restrict private funding of stem cell research.

The entire stem cell debate is nothing. It is about whether the government should be giving money to stem cell research. The answer to this question should be no since many people believe it destroys life.

There are no limits or restrictions on private funding of this research so why does the government have to get involved?

This is the problem with things today. Some people feel if the government doesn't fund something then it must not be a valid issue.

The government does not have unlimited resources. The government need to prioritize its' resources. Do you really think the federal government should be funding stem cell research over what the Constitutional mandates the government should be doing?

This has simply been an issue that some people have used for political and financial gain. It has nothing to do with what government should be concerned about.

Answer 3

Stem cell research can best be understood from the viewpoint of "who benefits?", or better yet, "follow the money". It is a well documented fact that embryonic stem cell research has produced no beneficial results whatsoever, despite the fact that people have been doing that research for years. Embyonic stem cell research requires an embryo as the source for the stem cells. That means an abortion must be performed. Now, there is another kind of stem cell research that has been going on for many years, involving cells from other sources besides embryos, such as umbilical cords. That research has produced spectacular results, curing many diseases and physical problems. That research has been carried out by doctors. Embyonic stem cell research is being carried out by other researchers, largely being fuinanced by grants. So, non-productive researchers, using aborted embryos and making their living by milking the grant system, versus very productive and harmless research being conducted by people in the know. Bush is only hurting the pocketbooks of researchers wasting their time, and other peoples money, while producing nothing of value.

Answer 4

What is really hurting medical research is the stigma that all stem cell research has to rely on human embryos.

Alternative research programs that can harvest and make practical use of stem cells obtained from fat cells is promising.

Once the ill informed public understands that not all stem cell research involves abortion, the sooner we can move forward and find real and ethical solutions.

President Bush will have the burden of thousands of very real deaths and many more sick men and women who could have been treated if he had gotten out of the way.

Answer 5

No, he isn't.
The restrictions are on spending federal tax dollars for research many find objectionable. That doesn't stop private research.
Stem cell research has gone on for years, and has produced good results. A majority of Americans find the embryonic research immoral and should not be financed by all the taxpayers.
Most legitimate stem cell researchers know embryonic cells are not suitable and do not produce beneficial results like adult stem cells.
This debate is just another hateful example of Bush bashing.

Answer 6

As with anything.....there's a good side and a bad side. Most people find these things out to help people......then in a blink of an eye....it turns nasty. This area is so open to abuse and mis-use that until they can make laws for the protection of the innocent.....it basically is best to close the door.

The way to hell is paved with good intentions and there's a ton out there waiting to use and abuse. I would never want to think that a procedure used to save my life would be contingent on the death of another. Nor would I want someone to decide if my life were "worth" it..or not. Nor would I want the cession of life be confused with giving life to another. It's easy to say when you benefit....but not when you loose, and there's no-one there to draw the line.

Answer 7

Instead of having taxpayer money be spent on research, why not apply for private grants? People will continue to look at the stem cell issue as a moral one, and I don't see why taxpayers should fund research they don't necessarily agree with. Personally, I think stem cell research should be funded massively as a prospective treatment option in the future, but not with public money.

Answer 8

he hasnt put any restrictions on stem cells,only embrionic stem cell research(which hasnt produced any results)meanwhile,umbilecal stem cells(where they were first found) and adult stem cells have proved results,and when the vote came in for embrionic stem cells,that week they(scientists) found the same kind of stem cells found in embryos in the amniotic fluid,so the real arguement and question is why do we want to use embryo cells when we have more resources that have proved results than killing an unborn child

Answer 9

So do you expect that someone who wastes time here knows more about the matter than the folks who wrote the article? You got your answer there.

Answer 10

Depends. With fetal stemcells, they haven't actually done anything for anyone yet, it is all maybe, and could be's.