January 4, 200719 yr One of the items that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to pass in the first 100 hours of the new Congress will be stem-cell research. This puts some of the newly elected pro-life Democrats in the difficult position of choosing between going against a conspicuous campaign position or going against Speaker Pelosi almost immediately after taking office. It will be interesting to see what transpires. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2007/01/04/pro-life_democrats
January 4, 200719 yr I think it'll pass, and I don't think it will be a nail biter vote. Then again - I've been wrong before... Frances
January 4, 200719 yr I think it'll pass, and I don't think it will be a nail biter vote. Then again - I've been wrong before... Frances We know. We all saw Barney arrest you and your posse for gambling and failure to disperse.
January 4, 200719 yr What really goes on in Frances' kitchen? Is she mixing batter for cookies or batches for clones? Let me again make clear some truths about political stem cell hype. First off, the federal government is already funding stem cell research. It was started during the Bush administration. The law only bans federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. There are no federal laws prohibiting private embryonic stem cell research. Again, I think its a mistake for the new Congress to immediately jump on the tinder-keg issues.
January 4, 200719 yr Author I think it'll pass, and I don't think it will be a nail biter vote. Then again - I've been wrong before... Frances I think it will pass also and if the vote isn't close it would make it easier for the self-proclaimed pro-life Democrates to vote against it without arousing Pelosi's ire. However, if Bush then vetoes the bill then their votes may become vital to overriding the veto which I think it could make it VERY interesting. I also agree that what we're talking about is federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
January 4, 200719 yr We know. We all saw Barney arrest you and your posse for gambling and failure to disperse. Boy!! One arrest for taking a moral stand, and the next thing you know, I've got a "Posse"... Let's just not mention the time they had to haul me in from the airport after my flight from Columbia. Muling isn't quite what it's hyped up to be. Frances
January 5, 200719 yr Didn't you also work for counterfeiters for a while? 3 strikes yer out! They told me they were "starving artists", and that they just needed someone to help distribute their artwork. I was quite naive, when I was a wee lass of 40 years. Frances
January 5, 200719 yr I hope it passes with flying colors! It's needed by so many people and simply, the right thing to do. It's about the only thing I can support on the Pelousy agenda.
January 5, 200719 yr I hope it passes with flying colors! It's needed by so many people and simply, the right thing to do. It's about the only thing I can support on the Pelousy agenda. I agree with the first sentence, and I couldn't help but chuckle at the intentional misspelling of the name ... Frances
January 5, 200719 yr I agree with the first sentence, and I couldn't help but chuckle at the intentional misspelling of the name ... Oops.
January 5, 200719 yr I assume it will pass. However, I would hope that Bush has enough backbone to veto it. A veto will not be overridden. For those on the other side of this issue, I would ask for some concrete evidence that this research will produce anything positive other than enriching some research companies. No "pie in the sky" wishful thinking but real evidence. None of this crap of "we'll never know if we don't try" because that approach is intellectually bankrupt. If such an argument is accepted as legitimate, similar manure can be used for any radical adventure into what is deemed as "medical research". Remove the overplayed emotion and give some proof or, at least, a believable argument.
January 5, 200719 yr I assume it will pass. However, I would hope that Bush has enough backbone to veto it. A veto will not be overridden. For those on the other side of this issue, I would ask for some concrete evidence that this research will produce anything positive other than enriching some research companies. No "pie in the sky" wishful thinking but real evidence. None of this crap of "we'll never know if we don't try" because that approach is intellectually bankrupt. If such an argument is accepted as legitimate, similar manure can be used for any radical adventure into what is deemed as "medical research". Remove the overplayed emotion and give some proof or, at least, a believable argument. Put me down for some of the "intellectually bankrupt" crap. Call me a fool, but very little scientific research has a known outcome, prior to embarkation. That is why they call it "research". Research has provided you with virtually every advancement ever made in healthcare, from antibiotics to prosthetics. If you want an ironclad guarantee that the research will someday lead to a cure for cancer, or elimination of something as common as Parkinson's, no one can give you that guarantee. On the other hand, if you don't mind letting people die of incredibly painful conditions without even attempting to increase the body of knowledge beyond what we currently have, I'll have to disagree with that position. Frances
January 5, 200719 yr Remove the overplayed emotion and give some proof or, at least, a believable argument.You wouldn't foolishly call it "overplayed emotion" if it was you or a loved one that was dying or in need. The fact is, the only INTELLIGENT argument is that we will never find what we don't strive to discover. I guess Ferdinand and Isabella should have denied Columbus his three ships, based on the theory that he didn't have any "proof." I guess that whole "round world" thing was just overplayed emotion.
January 5, 200719 yr If you want an ironclad guarantee that the research will someday lead to a cure for cancer, or elimination of something as common as Parkinson's, no one can give you that guarantee. On the other hand, if you don't mind letting people die of incredibly painful conditions without even attempting to increase the body of knowledge beyond what we currently have, I'll have to disagree with that position.Amen!! People that insist on hanging onto their agenda in the face of this simple logic just amaze me.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.