Hillary thinks so. It's one of her arguments purporting Bush's "War on science". Funny, I recall Bush declaring a few wars, but not one on science. My logic is that, if embryonic stem cell research holds promising cures, then it holds potential profit. This potential profit is incentive for the public and private sector industries to fund their research activities. Simply put, they don't need government money, and not awarding government money doesn't constitute a war on science. Once again, Hillary is dead wrong.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004/ap_po/clinton_science;_ylt=AjtCx4331xs..NYD8tcN24Gs0NUE
2007-10-04 09:12:03 · 23 answers · asked by Pfo 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Some of these answers are quite funny. Especially Democrats that don't realize that stem cell research is still allowed, and practiced. The government is simply not paying for it.
2007-10-04 09:23:46 · update #1
Hillary is trying to mislead the public. The private sector can do the research if they wanted. As a matter of fact many countries have already done it. Bush did not declare war on science, he just does not want the tax payer's money to pay for the research. The private research companies can work on it without getting in any religious conflict, since the funding is from the private source. In doing so, the private company can enjoy the intelligent right, copy right, royalty for their effort.
Hilliary is just a politician, she will say anything to get elected!
2007-10-04 09:50:05 · answer #1 · answered by Super Mimi 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Of course, you are right. Government money should not be used regardless of the level of controversy surrounding the research.
I wonder if Hillary would consider the death of unborn children so this "research" can continue a "ban on hope." The dead children sure don't have any hope.
Sadly, this is all about politics and not science. The research on embryonic stem cells has given us nothing. The best "hope" has actually come from adult stem cells. Science say one thing, but politics says another.
2007-10-04 09:19:18 · answer #2 · answered by A Human Bean 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
This is an ETHICAL ban because of killing babies to get the cells. There are OTHER promising developments with stem cells NOT taken from aborted babies. Also - WHY should the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT fund this research? Shouldn't the private sector drug companies be doing this?
2016-05-21 00:24:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your logic is half right. It holds no promise. They are disguising it to look like adult stem cell research, which not only has promise but has provided wonderful results. You are right in that it is profitable, and there's the reason for trying to sneak it by the people who have not bothered to do their own research. Global Warming and Embryonic Stem Cell Research are two democrat money making donkeys disguised as noble horses.
2007-10-04 09:19:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
MY life, and my kids, may depend upon stem cell research...
Due to a genetic disease: Huntington's. I do not yet know if I have it, but could. It killed my father and grandmother, and others in their family. It also is killing my sister (age 46).
I'm not an expert, but I do follow this issue closely, as I'm often torn between my faith (all life is sacred), my values (abortion and creating embryos that will eventually be destroyed is wrong), and my selfish needs and wants.
The majority of Stem Cell "success" is indeed in adult cells. The hope of embryotic lies in their likely ability to be accepted by another human. More success, though has actually been found using stem cells culled from umbilical cords removed from LIVING and BORN Children.
The existing stem cells out there are also adequate for current research. Even though it could save my life and my 3 kids...the continuation of aborting LIVING embryos for the sake of science is not worth it. It is selfish.
2007-10-05 04:46:58 · answer #5 · answered by scott_v1963 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
What ever happened to researchers doing the work on their own dime or finding someone in the private sector to fund the research? If the product can be sold for a profit, why does the federal government spend money on research that they do not own the copyrights to?
2007-10-04 09:24:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Embryonic stem cell research is being done. It is just not being done with tax dollars. I recall a drug commercial recently (Pfizer) where they claim that the cost of drugs today finance the miracles of tomorrow. This should answer all questions about where drug research money comes from.
2007-10-04 09:29:10 · answer #7 · answered by t. B 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Embryonic stem cells have proven nothing as far as cures. It is a hot-button topic among the left because it seems to validate abortion in their eyes while pretending that the focus is on curing sick people.
2007-10-04 10:27:21 · answer #8 · answered by Truth B. Told ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This lunatic idea that every piece of research has to be funded by the government or all progress will stop flies in the face of reason and history. It is insane to think that the government can (or should) follow up every idea just because it "seems good" to somebody. If there's a profit motive, private companies can do the job more efficiently in any case.
2007-10-04 09:18:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
this is exactly why democrats cant compete in the arena of ideas. they have to resort to snippets and sound bites that anyone with half a brain can see through. Bush want poor kids to not get aid, Bush wont help cure diseases, blah blah blah. It would be funny if it wasnt sad that useful idiots cant see the forrest for the trees.
2007-10-04 09:18:35 · answer #10 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋