It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why is Bush really against stem cell research?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I have been writing a paper on stem cell research, and started thinking about a couple of things. First off, I have not really decided my stance on stem cells...in the paper I am arguing pro-embryonic stem cells from in-vitro fertilization clinics, just because it will be the easiest side to take based on available research. Morally, I don't know if I really do approve of using embryonic stem cells (there is no citation that I can use in my paper for the way I feel), but I do support adult stem cell research.

George Bush's stem cell policy basically "compromised" by allowing research on 60 available lines of stem cells...this seems a bit fishy to me. Usually if you are arguing something based on morals, you are taking the "extreme" position of saying that is what you truely believe, and there is no way you are backing down. If Bush really thinks stem cells are wrong, how can he just allow 60 lines of stem cells to be experimented on? From his, and other conservative standpoints (saying that stem cells kill the already living embryo), that is like handing a gun to a killer and saying he can kill 1000 people in the world, but no more. How can you argue something based on morals, and then come to a "compromise"? The answer is, you really can't. It is clear that his decision on stem cells was more of a political ploy than anything else.

Furthermore, if you start to think like Bush (not very easy, thoughts start to come in one letter at a time), you will be thinking with one main concern. Myself. Yes, Bush wants to look out for himself, and his own wallet. Recently in the election debates with John Kerry, one argument against Bush was that he is not making drugs from canada available to us in the United States, so we are all being gouged by the skyhigh prices of prescription drugs by going domestic. Bush obviously has financial interest in the well-being of pharmaceutical companies (they always do much better when any republican is in office too). The industry is booming right now, and the businesses are all making a killing by ripping off the average american. What does this have to do with stem cells?

Stem cells have the potential to "cure" many diseases. Currently many diseases such as heart disease and congestive heart failure, diabetes, parkinson's, etc. don't really have cures. We have many drugs to treat the symptoms of these "incurable" diseases (as well as many other diseases), but they don't treat the problem. Stem cells on the other hand could easily revolutionize the medical industry by curing countless diseases. This would still probably take some years to develop, but it wouldn't take very long if full funding were given to scientists. If stem cells are developed for medical use, and live up to the hype and expectations, it's possible they could become the number one medical solution for most diseases, or just most medical problems.

If stem cells can be developed in this way, which as of right now it looks very possible, it would eliminate any competition in the medical industry. Drug companies would go bankrupt because there would be no use for many drugs that are currently used to treat the symptoms...stem cells could just be used to cure the whole problem. Could this really be the reason that Bush and many conservatives are against stem cell research?

This is just a "theory", and could be a longshot, but you have to admit that this issue has probably crossed Bush's mind when trying to decide on stem cells. Also, I am not trying to argue for or against stem cell research in this post, as my own personal position is still undecided...so keep that in mind. But I would like to hear your own opinions.




posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Shoktek,

I have read your words since the 2004 campaign issues.

I am, basically, a fundamentalist christian and I don't understand the Bush position on this either.

There can be no "moral dilemma" on this issue. This can only be the utilization of tissue other wise destined for the trash bin. No matter what your concept of abortion is, this gives meaning to a possible life lost. Why? Why would not allow that?

Only if you have cloistered yourself away from the daily anguish endured by paralytics, victims of degenerate brain disorders, etc. could you possibly dismiss the good that come to mankind from this research.

I'm sorry...but I have logically, emotionally, and spiritually considered this issue and depth, and I personally cannot understand why anyone would want to impair it.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Its because Bush is a stone age fundemetalist unable to move on with the times, there is no moral delemma, we are talking of technology that can save thousands and hes ignorantly throwing it away for an out dated relegious concept.

Lives or Bible bashing, there is no choice: peoples lives.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Arent there other places where you could get stem cells? I heard the umbilacle chord has alot of stem cells and yet they just throw that away when a baby is born. How about instead of killin babes you just use that.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Bush and moral issues? Hmmm, no that isn't it. That turd hasn't a moral fiber in his body, if he does, it is the kind of morality that makes it ok to mock death row inmates, snort coc aine up his alcaholic nose, lie about business connections to criminals, and other double standards too numerous to list. No, I think Shoktek hit the nail on the head with his prior observation that the Pharmacutical companies and medical industry would suffer a financial blow in the development of any real progress in medical science. Stem Cell Research could be the next mircale of modern science that propels mandkind into a new era, but don't believe a damned word about morality issues being part of holding this research back. They should never have let the first lobbyist in the door and fired the first legislator that took money from one of them. Representation is not an economic status in theory, in practice, it is the only way the system functions. Pretty sad when the world is on the brink of a HUGE medical advance that could literally propel us into a new era, and we can't have it because they make more money off us being sick.
Good post Shoktek.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Quite simply, he prefers votes over lives.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek

George Bush's stem cell policy basically "compromised" by allowing research on 60 available lines of stem cells...this seems a bit fishy to me. Usually if you are arguing something based on morals, you are taking the "extreme" position of saying that is what you truely believe, and there is no way you are backing down. If Bush really thinks stem cells are wrong, how can he just allow 60 lines of stem cells to be experimented on?


I also had to do some research for a paper on this topic. What I found was that even though he is "allowing" research on ~60 lines of cells, there are only 19 lines that can actually be used for research. The other lines have degraded to the point where they are no longer useful. Of course, Bush won't tell you that. It's a half-hearted attemp at saving lives.

I know this following link is John Kerry's site, but this is the first site that came up in a search. There are other sites with the same info.
Stem cell research



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   
At this point we can't even prove that medications aren't making us more sick. I mean the other day after watching my dad be sick for about the last 9 months continuously with colds and other odd symptoms I finally looked up his prescriptions on-line. Total I found 3 life threatening conflicts in medication.... IN 3 minutes using google, Most of which were easy to see they would conflict. stem cell research is being held back because it would cure many diseases that you currently need high dollar drugs for life to survive. Example: My dad is an asthmatic with High Blood pressure/cholestorol, not only are his pills killing him but WITH INSURANCE he pays $300 a month in copays for prescriptions.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56
Arent there other places where you could get stem cells? I heard the umbilacle chord has alot of stem cells and yet they just throw that away when a baby is born. How about instead of killin babes you just use that.


Embryonic stem cells are believed to be the only stem cells that can differentiate into all of the body's different cell types.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
There can be no "moral dilemma" on this issue. This can only be the utilization of tissue other wise destined for the trash bin. No matter what your concept of abortion is, this gives meaning to a possible life lost. Why? Why would not allow that?

Only if you have cloistered yourself away from the daily anguish endured by paralytics, victims of degenerate brain disorders, etc. could you possibly dismiss the good that come to mankind from this research.

I'm sorry...but I have logically, emotionally, and spiritually considered this issue and depth, and I personally cannot understand why anyone would want to impair it.


Yea, I was completely pro-embryonic stem cells at first (and I'm still leaning that way), but many of the embryos that are currently frozen in those clinics have actually been adopted...and the "tissue" has turned into human beings in some cases. This is the main reason that I am unsure about whether or not I think it is right...each embryos does have the POTENTIAL for life, but I don't think we can ever decide where or when life really starts. It's just something about the whole concept of the genetic engineering type thing that freaked me out and made me remember "Brave New World" and the test tube creations...

I do think that all the funding needed should be given to research the potential of these cells, because I think that the possible medical technology from this should be made available to people who need it...I, personally however am not sure if I agree with it, or if I would choose to use stem cell therapy if the choice were given to me. And I definitely don't support the labs which are cloning embryos in the sense of a "stem cell factory".

Basically my philosophy when it comes to laws, is people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. That is why I am not sure about my personal feelings on the matter, as I can't really be sure that the clump of tissue isn't already a developing human...



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
From all the research and reading I have done on stem cells and embrionic cells it is my firm belief that the Bush administration is keeping them in check. I along with many others have the firm belief that both types of cells can rejuvenate organs and cure many of the wicked diseases that are out there now. You would figure that Bush would want to make his wallet phatter along with his cronies and they would get this pushed through congress. Futhermore Bush is just a pawn to the Pharma. groups and knows more money is to be made by withholding these new concepts from the paying public. There are humane ways to collect these cells without killing babies and should be made available to give terminal people hope of recovery.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Hey, I wonder if, through the miracle of stem cell research, I could have a new Pineal Gland or two customized to my DNA and installed. If it's legal to do cosmetic surgery such as breast implants or nose reductions, seems like the same would apply to what I would coin as "Recreational Spiritual Neurochemical Enhancements". A couple extra Pineal Glands and a week or two of surgical recovery in a meditation room would certainly be worth the doctors bill to me.

Point? I wonder in what other directions Stem Cell research could be applied that would make this research financialy appealing to other medical industries, that is where you get something legislated. Moral Issues aside, if Stem Cell research could broaden it's market potential, eventually the hounds will smell money and it will fly. There are no moral implications at the level of legislation, if they say they're are moral issues, they are lying through their teeth. But if they can find a way to bring this research into a mainstream marketability, I think the abmorality of using stem cell would quickly become 'old superstition'.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Killing embryos to harvest stem cells is wrong, period. I can tell you, if I were paralyzed, and walking again meant killing an unborn baby, I'd stay in a wheelchair. I'd still have life--why kill someone else in the name of convenience? Why do handicapped people suddenly have this right to be selfish? Put emotion aside for a moment and think about it.

(Note--I'm somewhat handicapped myself--slightly.)

Baby teeth have stem cells. So does fat. Someone mentioned umbilical cord blood--that's great all-around. And I'm all for researching adult stem cells.

It's just that when you kill another human being in the name of research, that's where I have a problem.

As far as Bush goes, he's not a moral person. End of story.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Stem cell research: They take an egg and a sperm, they grow a fetus in a tube basically. I consider this outright killing of a child, this is a child we are talking about. In California it was voted in for the research to continue. It is against nature and try to find the fountain of youth and disease free. All because people can not face the reality of getting older, diseases, or health problems. All in the name of science we stoop to this level to prolong life, look at our elderly now, they call sending them in a nursing home quality of life. What a joke. A sperm and an egg are the foundation of making a child, not kill the child in the name of research. Many people like Christopher Reeves were for it to find a crop to grow you see on sci-fi to clone yourself to repair or replace parts. What a sham to deal in something that it will benefit people, it benefits to those who could afford it. I like what I have, I will face what is to come, and I will not be part of such low standards to have babies as body parts even if it is a clone. This would lead to a problem in the future of cloning, we would have to search to replace DNA we once had as humans. The old saying too much of a good thing it bad for you.

Oh, that clump is a developing human!! Kerry is a political joke!!

[edit on 22-1-2005 by ancientsailor]

[edit on 22-1-2005 by ancientsailor]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Killing embryos to harvest stem cells is wrong, period. I can tell you, if I were paralyzed, and walking again meant killing an unborn baby, I'd stay in a wheelchair. I'd still have life--why kill someone else in the name of convenience? Why do handicapped people suddenly have this right to be selfish? Put emotion aside for a moment and think about it.

(Note--I'm somewhat handicapped myself--slightly.)

Baby teeth have stem cells. So does fat. Someone mentioned umbilical cord blood--that's great all-around. And I'm all for researching adult stem cells.

It's just that when you kill another human being in the name of research, that's where I have a problem.


excuse me? selfish? after years trapped in a useless body you try saying that, you dont know how much torture it is, trust me you'd want anything if you could feel, walk, talk or touch your nose again, you have no idea at all, its not like abortion at all, your view is unfounded here, no fetus involved, only simple cells.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by namehere

Originally posted by Amethyst
Killing embryos to harvest stem cells is wrong, period. I can tell you, if I were paralyzed, and walking again meant killing an unborn baby, I'd stay in a wheelchair. I'd still have life--why kill someone else in the name of convenience? Why do handicapped people suddenly have this right to be selfish? Put emotion aside for a moment and think about it.

(Note--I'm somewhat handicapped myself--slightly.)

Baby teeth have stem cells. So does fat. Someone mentioned umbilical cord blood--that's great all-around. And I'm all for researching adult stem cells.

It's just that when you kill another human being in the name of research, that's where I have a problem.


excuse me? selfish? after years trapped in a useless body you try saying that, you dont know how much torture it is, trust me you'd want anything if you could feel, walk, talk or touch your nose again, you have no idea at all, its not like abortion at all, your view is unfounded here, no fetus involved, only simple cells.


I think what he was implying was that it is selfish to kill someone else so they can get better. Which I agree with.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Shoktek, I commend your effort (and your avatar as well), you hit right into the nose. But, as you could see from the replies, many people believe the equation stem cell research=killing unborn babies. President Bush may care nothing about this issue, but he cares about his fundamentalist electorate and supporters. And if his supporters want to have stem cell research limited in scope or even banned, he'll try to please them. We are still very much at the beginning of the stem cell revolution and one of the immediate goals is to find a substitute for embryos because, apart from the ethical issues, they are not always available. This research is strictly connected with "cloning" procedures and requires brains, money and time. And it's no wonder that pharmaceutic industries are not pleased at all, since stem cells would take away a good share of their business and, moreover, they can't have a slice of the cake, since most of the research (with annexed patents) is held by public institutions (research hospitals, universities, etc) or bio-tech companies. Right now the countries that invested more into stem cell research and "cloning" are South Korea, Great Britain, Japan and China, all countries without much sympathy for the pharmaceutic industries. If you look at the countries that oppose these procedures the most or try to stop them you'll find either the ones with huge medical corporations (Switzerland, for example) or the ones whose medical and scientific community is traditionally very close (if not subordinate) to big pharmas (like Italy). Money has spoken.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56I think what he was implying was that it is selfish to kill someone else so they can get better. Which I agree with.


but embryonic stem cells in most cases arent from fetal tissue, but trust me you'd kill anything to get out of such an existence, even yourself.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:20 AM
link   
First of all GW has done nothing to stop "stem cell" research. He only said no "federal" money for anything beyond the existing 60 strains. These strains have been genetically "mapped" and can be reporduced without fresh human tissue from babies.

This entire subject was and is nothing more that a backdoor attempt to justify "infantacide" (abortion for you libs). There are so many other sources to stem cells other that recently murdered children. Stem cell "research" itself is based on 1930's technology and theory. The 21st century does not need data based on nazi concentration camps......



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   
[quote]excuse me? selfish? after years trapped in a useless body you try saying that, you dont know how much torture it is, trust me you'd want anything if you could feel, walk, talk or touch your nose again, you have no idea at all, its not like abortion at all, your view is unfounded here, no fetus involved, only simple cells.

SORRY TO BURST YOUR BUBBLE ON THEY DO NOT GROW FETUS FOR RESEARCH. They do grow them in a tube, it develops!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join