Stem Cell Research

I don't know where I stand on embryonic stem cell research. I respect the sanctity of life. But there is an overwhelming number of Americans who are morally and philosophically opposed to the practice. I don't know what the promise is. I am listening to the House debate on the HR3 attempt to publicly, federally fund it. Embryonic stem cell research has been going on now for over 20 years. I have yet to hear a single example of any sickness, illness, or ailment which has been cured or reversed from the study of embryonic stem cells. There have been admittedly at least nine from adult stem cells, while others are claiming as many as 72. There is also more promise showing from amnionic cells.

It was easy to be drawn in by those supporting this bill that we are at a critical point here, for if we don't pass this bill, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, and other diseases will continue with no hope for a cure. I guess that means that if Congress does not pay for it, it will not continue. While this opens itself to all kinds of directions of discussion, I will stick to the legislation.

HR3 proposes that taxpayers fund embryonic research. It does not propose to make the research legal or even possible. The research is already legal, and is being done as I type this. So, if my neighbor, who adamantly believes the practice to be morally repugnant, does not pay for this research, the research will continue. If it is so promising, why does it require public funding. I would think that if it is the only way to cure Michael J Fox, it would most certainly receive unlimited philanthropic funding.

Again, I do not have a definite stand on the issue of embryonic stem cell research. I do, however, strongly oppose requiring a society in which a significant number of members morally oppose the practice to pay for the research.

The gentlelady from Colorado correctly pointed out that a significant number of Americans morally oppose the war in Iraq (I think that "morally" is probably more accurately interchanged with "politically" in this instance, but that is for another discussion.) We still required these individuals to help fund this war. I guess her point is that if we can require people to fund a war to which they are morally opposed, then we should be able to require them to fund scientific research to which they are morally opposed. What she does not address, however, is that there is no other way to fund the war, while there are plenty of other avenues available for stem cell researchers to find some money. I would also suggest that funding a war is well within the purpose of the establishment of government, and not simply as an enhancement to public welfare.