Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Why I Voted For Arnold
I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Republican; I'm for common-sense in government. Like this:

"I urge you not to make the first veto of your presidency one that turns America backwards on the path of scientific progress and limits the promise of medical miracles for generations to come."

--California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a letter to President Bush

Why I would never vote for a George Bush. From the LA Times Op-Ed page:

IF, AS EXPECTED, the U.S. Senate votes to expand federal support of embryonic stem cell research today, the Republican Party will begin making amends for allowing religious conservatives to stall medical progress for nearly five years. If, as threatened, President Bush uses his very first veto to block the bill, the rap on the GOP as the party hostile to science will continue to be deserved.

The government's current split-the-baby approach to embryonic stem cell research makes no sense. In 2001, Bush banned any federal funding for such science other than on the few dozen stem cell lines that had already been harvested, because he didn't want to authorize what he called the deliberate destruction of life. It made no difference to him that the research uses only embryos that would have been destroyed anyway, having been left over from fertility treatments.

The existing restrictions have created some absurdities. Because many laboratories receive private research funding not subject to the same regulations, some of them are forced to use color-coded tabs to separate identical but separately funded equipment. Others reportedly use police tape to divide the parts of their labs funded by public versus private dollars.

...Should Bush follow through on his veto threat, it's unlikely that Congress would be able to override it. The House of Representatives passed the measure 238 to 194 last year, far short of the two-thirds support necessary for an override. The Senate would require a veto-proof 67 votes, which don't appear to exist.

Embryonic stem cells can develop into any kind of cell in the body; researchers believe studying them could eventually lead to treatments for such debilitating diseases as Parkinson's and diabetes. Even if this worthy bill fails to become law, the debate about it may succeed in showing Americans that the advancement of science is more important than the advancement of politics.

Posted by aalkon at July 19, 2006 9:41 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1516

Comments

Ugh...I read about this this morning and wanted to puke. Apply your logic motor to this, if you will....it's NOT okay to use embryos discarded by fertility clinics for stem-cell reasearch, but it IS okay for fertility clinics to make 8 or 9 or 10 extraneous embryos and then discard them in search for a viable one.
What. The. Fuck.
Why isn't everyone up in arms about clinics who do this? Why isn't anyone angry about the sheer arrogance of paying thousands of dollars because only YOUR genetic material is worth passing on? Why aren't the fetus-humpers freaking out about this abuse of the speshul mirakul of life??

Posted by: amh18057 at July 19, 2006 8:22 AM

B-b-b-but.....Snowflake Babies!!!! [/fundie]

Posted by: deja pseu at July 19, 2006 9:00 AM

A snowflake baby? Is that like the body of one I'm hiding in the freezer? (I know, I know, frozen embryo....frozen embryo? Tasty snack!!)

Posted by: amh18057 at July 19, 2006 9:22 AM

Crid -- can/will the democrats use this to their advantage? Weener

Posted by: Lena at July 19, 2006 10:00 AM

And then, once again, religious fudamentalism is blocking science. Kinda remember me when it was a mortal sin to open a corpse to see how it works inside.

Here's another idea; if George W. Bush dint want the U.S. government to fund stern-cell research using embryos, will he push a law to protect ALL unused embryos? It is not cruel to leave human embryos frozen indefinetly?

One other little twist: Why the religious right care so much about embryos and not much about kids? What about extra funding for schools or better medicare for kids? It cost nothing to protect a bundle of cells...

Posted by: Toubrouk at July 19, 2006 4:39 PM

This is still federally funded efforts that we're talking about, right? IIRC, private efforts are continuing on existing cell lines, and new development techniques are making those formerly precious lines less of an necessity for progress... Stems can come from others places, soon if not now. Federal funding is never going to do the heavy lifting anyway. If this really shows promise, investors will be hanging on it like a cheap suit. Correct me if I'm wrong...

... Because this seems to be one of those things that means little in the big picture, but allows the Alkonian to get all huffy.

Posted by: Crid at July 19, 2006 7:34 PM

Yes, Federal funding will not stop research in the stern-cell sector but it might lead to other problems down the road. What if some european team pull a breaktrough in the field of genetics throught stern-cell research, will the results of their experiment will be usable in the U.S. of A.? Would a treatment based on those researches will be banned in the States because deemed "Un-Ethical"? Are they opening a moral pandora box on us?

Posted by: Toubrouk at July 19, 2006 8:03 PM

> What if some european team pull a
> breaktrough in the field of genetics

If Europe were to regain supremacy in ANY realm of human affairs, we'd all be delighted for them. Meanwhile, why would governmental investment, a trickle compared to the private wagers on this technology, be so critical?

Posted by: Crid at July 19, 2006 10:17 PM

My problem is what will come down the road. If the government ban funding for the research, will they also ban the cure because it came from a "poisoned tree"? It might sound trivial and highly unprobable but when funamentalism find it's way into something, can we feel a little concerned?

Posted by: Toubrouk at July 20, 2006 4:42 AM

We federally fund abstinence education (which doesn't work) and a host of other things. I think funding science that has the potential to cure many horrible diseases is a rather worthy cause, if we're going to be in the funding business, which, it seems, we are.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 20, 2006 6:09 AM

This is no less a waste of money on voter feel-good than are the many Christian sorts of state investments that so trouble you. Your spending our tax money to make a point about 'who we are'....

Posted by: Crid at July 20, 2006 8:31 AM

Leave a comment