stang99x said:
At this point, I must depart from my political affiliations. I disagree with MJ Fox and his methods. He was wrong to overexaggerate his condition as he did, and probably set back his cause more than excelerating it.
The use of stem cell research, reguardless of origon, to aid in the repair of damaged human cells of current persons should be legalized. I see this as a future for people such as Ronald Reagan, who died from such a disease. There are several points from which that I deviate from my political affiliation, but this is one of the more notable
Stang,
I'm actually surprised at you; not at your "departure," but at your lack of an informed opinion. Clearly, people simply aren't paying attention to what is being said.
I
just said to specify the difference between
EMBRYONIC and
ADULT stem cell research when we discuss it, and you blew that instruction right off the bat.
Furthermore, I must rehash points that have already been made:
1.
Embryonic stem cell research is already legal.
2.
Embryonic stem cell research has zero evidence that it works.
3.
Adult stem cell research is the only one that actually shows promise.
4. The fight between the ideologies is NOT whether or not to legalize
embryonic stem cell research (because it's already legal), but whether to allocate taxpayer dollars (federal funds) to it. The argument is that the validity of
embryonic stem cell research will be justified by the amount of private dollars being poured into it, and that there is no need to put tax money into it without any oversight whatsoever, because that would allow fudging of ethical lines and open a floodgate of federal money.
As far as pbslmo's angry, rambling, virtually incoherent sarcastic rant, I will only say that thanks to groups like PETA, we are more careful these days in protecting little rodents while doing laboratory research than we are in protecting human life. I'm sorry for you that you don't value innocent human life. But people like you are the rabid abortionists who want to see as many abortions performed as possible to advance the holy sacrament of liberalism.
Like it or not, we are already in a 'brave new world' where a mother can decide to murder her own baby inside her womb with a pistol and go home later that week.
You abortionists try to conflate the death penalty with the right to life. You ignore the fact that a murderer has forfeited his right to life by committing a capital crime, while an unborn baby has simply committed the crime of being inconvenient to its mother. I guess we should just allow any mother who is tired of raising her children to kill them off, eh? Maybe you would give Andrea Yates a pardon.
You also tried to conflate organ donation to embryonic stem cell research. The two are not even remotely related. First of all, the word
donation denotes a clear, voluntary, conscious choice by the donor to give up an organ to a needy recipient.
On the other hand, an embryo has no such choice. Your ilk will simply confiscate whatever parts you need from a living being, thus ending an innocent life, so that you can continue living your lprecious lives. And where does it end? Should we allow organ
confiscation from children up to the age of two years? How about ten years?
How about if someone is a Conservative Christian, since they believe they are going to heaven anyway, why don't we just legalize
confiscation of their organs at any age? If anyone can't sleep at night or look themselves in the mirror, I'll bet it's your people.
The wording can be construed to mean that the legislature cannot prohibit other methods. Whether that was intentional or not is another story.
