I already know I am correct about this, due to the lack of any dispute yesterday by liberals...but here it is again, more facts proving that liberals simply say things to gain power:
Fact. No President before George Bush ever funded stem cell research.
Fact. George Bush has funded embryonic stem cell research on existing lines, in fact he has doubled funding on it.
Fact. Embryonic stem cells have to date cured or treated precisely nothing.
Fact. There are currently 72 treatments in use for non-embryonic stem cells.
Fact. George Bush has put zero restrictions on private research into embryonic stem cell research.
Fact. Liberals are distorting this issue and telling lies on a complicated issue strictly for political gain.
Fact. It is unhonest to say in a blanket manner that George Bush or Mark Green are opposed to stem cell research in general or embryonic stem cell research in particular.
Fact. The bill that all the hubbub was about dealt with the creation of human embryos strictly for medical experimentation and the federal funding of said research. That is cloning, it is illegal and immoral and I am gratified it was struck down.
Fact. Jim Doyle and his campaign are lying in saying Mark Green is against stem cell research.
These are the facts, they are not in dispute.
Let me repeat that last fact. JIM DOYLE AND HIS CAMPAIGN ARE LYING.
Any questions?
From RDW
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
The facts on the stem cell debate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Good post.
Too bad the only people reading it are people who already knew it.
"Fact. The bill that all the hubbub was about dealt with the creation of human embryos strictly for medical experimentation and the federal funding of said research. That is cloning, it is illegal and immoral and I am gratified it was struck down."
Bush and the Republican Party are totally off base here. The only reason why they're doing this is to juice up the religious wackos in the party before the November elections. That's it. The scientific community is united on this. Stem-cell research is not murder; hell, stem cells aren't even people. Let's use some common sense here.
This isn't a federal funding issue either. Bush hasn't lifted a finger to reduce funding with regard to broken programs medicare or social security, but he'll block federal money for legitimate scientific research.
Fact. The bill that all the hubbub was about dealt with the creation of human embryos strictly for medical experimentation and the federal funding of said research.
Not fact. The bill all the hubbub was about would have allowed federal funding for research on stem cell lines derived after August 2001, regardless of how they were created. In fact, no one is seriously talking about creating embryos "strictly for medical research," but rather about the 50,000 or so frozen blastocysts left over from IVF procedures, many of which parents want to donate to scientific research. If those blastocysts are not one of the lucky 0.25% to be adopted as "snowflakes," they will be destroyed without benefitting anyone.
Jason~
I profess to be of a religious mindset. I do believe in God, and I do pray. But that is not why I am against stem cell research necessarily. Does anyone remember that stupid sheep Molly? Cloned IN SECRET? I already have an identical twin...and I have no desire to have a "secret clone" of me out there.
I realize that stem cells COULD be of good use. And I myself have a medical condition that could possibly, in the future, benefit from this research. Yet I'm still against it. At what point do we just give in and say that things happen because they happen and stop trying to fight fate? At what point do we stop trying to find a cure simply for the sake of profit? And admit that human life itself is invaluable, and therefore any "cloning" should not be tampered with? Be it embryonic cells or not.
Not just that, but how much money did this bill WASTE of our taxdollars when it was nearly guaranteed that President Bush would veto it in the end? And I'm sick of that. I pay taxes for issues that have a chance. All the time and research that went into that bill could have easily gone into something else that would have been passed...like ways to lower gasoline prices or prevent another natural disaster such as Hurricane Katrina. I am fairly certain if they had taken the same amount of time to "sit down and dispute" those things, an agreement sufficing ALL could have been reached.
Just my opinion...
I feel I should clarify something I said above in case someone misunderstood...
By "prevent another natural disaster..." I meant NOT that we control those things, but we were aware of the chance it COULD happen there, and yet did nothing to prevent it.
Also, I forgot to add, President Bush (as stated in this post) never said anything about private companies not funding it. Sure it's expensive, and that's why everyone wants government funding. Because they don't want to fork out the money, but certainly if someone finds a "cure" or something from it they want to reap the vast profits from being the first.
It's just like me. I'm a poor college student. And when I say poor, I mean POOOOOR. Yet I didn't qualify for federal aid to go to school. So what did I do? I joined the military and sacrificed my time and energy to get what I wanted WITHOUT the help of free aid. And I'm thinking that a huge corporation, like maybe Exxon (since it keeps having record profits) could jump in on this race and fund it all on their own. It's called being responsible and making your own choices...and frankly I'd like to see more business owners start doing that rather than just feeding off the government money all the time.
I hope I didn't open a can of worms here...
You opened one can of worms, deanndra. Just because President X says he doesnt support a bill, doesnt mean Congress Y shouldnt put it to vote. The legislative branch controls the making of laws, not the executive.
rhyno~
You're extremely correct with that. HOWEVER, we elected our congress-people into office, just as we elected our president. And I know I voted for the candidate who I felt would do the best for the country and make the wisest decisions. And I'll be honest that stem cell research was part of my consideration. So just because Congress wants to pass it (and I voted for my congress-person also based on the same beliefs) and my person is only a small voice, that they can band together to go against what the majority wants?
What I mean with that long run-on is that there are way more Congress-people. And my person is only ONE voice. But the President is THE voice, and was elected, out of everyone else, because of the things he supports and doesn't support. He is supposed to be representative of the public opinion and welfare of ALL the people. My Congress person is representative of just my state. And I'm thinking that if a person was really so much in favor of stem cell research, they probably would have chosen to vote for Kerry. After all, things that are most important to me (like the military) are my FIRST considerations when choosing where my vote will go. And Bush has (quite outspokenly) been against this research from day one. He didn't deceive his voters. So obviously, as majority elects, he was brought into office BECAUSE of those opinions.
deanndra is such a better contributor to this blog than dedanna...I'm not even saying I agree with her 100%...but she has well thought out comments that are not filled with emotional rage...well done young lady...i hope you continue to be here a long time...I check your blog once a day...
Actually, your civics are incorrect, again. Some of these seem semantic, but are still valid.
1) We dont directly vote for our president. Our Senators did, originally, and the Electoral college is supposed to have the same effect.
2) I didnt quite understand the next part about the majority. In theory, the bill should go back for adjustment in committee, so it can pass or at least gain a 2/3 majority.
3) The president is not THE voice. He is 'the' voice of the executive branch. He is the 'top' voice of gov't. Semantics, but important.
4) People vote, or dont vote for prez for many different reasons. Also, those reasons are twisted by both sides and by other filters before they get to us.
Editorial - I think people tend to vote because of one main reason, whether its real or not.
Anyway, I wont fully agree with game that dedanna was some crazy person, but I gotta admit he's spot on about you...so far. :)
Game said,
"Fact. The bill that all the hubbub was about dealt with the creation of human embryos strictly for medical experimentation and the federal funding of said research. That is cloning, it is illegal and immoral and I am gratified it was struck down."
Fact. The height of your ignorance is amazing. The bill you are referring to is also known as the "Fetal Farming" bill. It is totally separate from the stem cell research bill that Bush vetoed. Totally different bill. Furthermore, the Fetal Farming bill was to PREVENT fetal farming and that was not struck down. It passed the House and Senate unanimously.
Read a paper. Watch the news. Stop reading NewsBusters or NewsMax.
Game~
Hey thanks! I showed your blog to my friends tonight--devout republicans. :-) Just like you, I don't always agree with what everyone else says, but I at least TRY and do research before taking a side. That's what I enjoy about your blog. Lots of research. Good job!!!
Post a Comment