Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research, from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit, and from a government willing to support that work. From life-saving vaccines, to pioneering cancer treatments, to the sequencing of the human genome — that is the story of scientific progress in America. When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed. Promising avenues go unexplored. Some of our best scientists leave for other countries that will sponsor their work. And those countries may surge ahead of ours in the advances that transform our lives.
In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research — and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.
It’s a difficult and delicate balance. And many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. And I understand their concerns, and I believe that we must respect their point of view.
But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans — from across the political spectrum, and from all backgrounds and beliefs — have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research; that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.
That is a conclusion with which I agree. And that is why I am signing this executive order, and why I hope Congress will act on a bipartisan basis to provide further support for this research. We are joined today by many leaders who have reached across the aisle to champion this cause, and I commend all of them who are here for that work.
Obama is keeping his promises. The fruit of his agenda will take us farther along into a nazi-esque inhuman culture.
As [url= http://godspace.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/what-is-lent-preparing-us-for/%5D Christine Sine[/url] wrote, we must learn to live as people of the Kingdom of Heaven wherever we are, whatever the cost.
somehow didn’t make the hidden link work.
Thou shall not kill.
Allow me to dissect these comments: (my thoughts in brackets)
It’s a difficult and delicate balance. (between murder and life?)
And many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. (that is because ALL decent people would oppose the taking of life)
And I understand their concerns, (not sure you do or your own rhetoric and words would cause you to weep)
and I believe that we must respect their point of view (but then ignore it anyway I guess? A bit like Jefferts Schori respects orthodox Christians!)
But after much discussion, debate and reflection, (I will take your word for it- you provide NO evidence of it)
the proper course has become clear. (SORRY?!!! How? you cannot just state it you MUST demonstrate it. Where did this happen? I see no clarity in the arguments for?)
The majority of Americans — from across the political spectrum, and from all backgrounds and beliefs — have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research; (the majority at Christ’s unjust trial came to a consensus that he should be crucified, so what?)
that the potential it offers is great, (do not doubt that for one minute- but not a the cost of harvesting human souls Mr. President)
and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, (wonderful you may murder Mr Smith, but only under stirct guidlines and oversight0- doesnt help Mr. smith does it?)
the perils can be avoided. (No the embryos will never come to term nor be dealt with in a dignified manner)
(And with these words he placed blood on his hands- I blogged on this today http://sbarnabas.com/blog/2009/03/10/joseph-mengele-re-incarnate/
another terrible day for freedom, love and a culture of life over death)
That is a conclusion with which I agree.
[blockquote]I can also promise that we will never undertake this research lightly. We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted. We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.[/blockquote]
This seems to be a non-sequitur.
“I can also promise that we will never undertake this research lightly. We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted.â€
What does this mean? What is “scientifically worthy� How is this determined? What is “responsible conducted� Why is this even desirable? What does it mean if it is irresponsibly conducted, that is, what is the harm?
“We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse.â€
Why strict guidelines? What strict guidelines? What is the harm to be prevented? What is the misuse or abuse that cannot be tolerated?
“And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.â€
Why? Why is this a “dangerous, profoundly wrongâ€?. Is it not science? Does not science have a duty to explore everything uncoupled from morality? After all whose morality is to be applied? Did he not say, “It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology. (Applause.)â€? How is cloning any different? Upon what moral or political basis does he conclude that cloning is “dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society…â€? Is he saying that science should not be held back by morality except when it should be?
I see a lot of words here, but when you look at them closely they become slippery and I don’t really know what they mean or where they lead. He does not seem to apply morality to embryonic stem cell research, but applies it to cloning. So when is morality applied? Does he mean that science operates independently of all morality?
At the end of the speech I am left with nothing more than a decision to fund stem cell research for no better reason than he wants to do it based on some sort of utilitarian morality.
see the following editorial: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzEzNDI1OWJiZmRkN2NiNTU1NmVhNTJmYzRhOWNmZmE=
This somehow has to do with the right to abort since you are not dealing with human life according to the Supreme Court. And after all, admittedly, when life begins is above his pay grade.
[blockquote]This somehow has to do with the right to abort since you are not dealing with human life according to the Supreme Court. [/blockquote]
Wrong. The fetal stem cell issue is all about abortion and the pro-abortion lobby’s eagerness to justify the killing of the unborn through a diseased, Mengelian utilitarian argument.
8, exacituckily, especially considering the sucesses science has had with the use of pluripotent stem cells derived from skin, in comparison with the lack of successes using embryonic stem cells. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
T
“But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans — from across the political spectrum, and from all backgrounds and beliefs — have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research; that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.”
Translation: you have a good point. But you lost the election. Americans want to pursue this research.
But I don’t see what the fuss is about. He’s letting scientists be scientists.
#10. And yes, scientist came up with atom bomb.
Is “letting scientists be scientists” now the standard by which the use of taxpayers’ money is to be judged? With all due respect to Mr. Wilkins, “the fuss” is about the killing of human beings in order to use their cells as replacement parts for other human beings. The fact that these human beings are embryos is irrelevant. After all, “embryo,” just like “infant, child, adolescent, adult, and old codger” are all just terms referring to the same creature at different phases of its life.
And to assert that the moral issues of embryonic stem cell research have been settled because one party won an election over another one is so repellent a notion that it could only have come from one who also apparently believes that majority votes in General Council settle issues such as the primacy of Scripture and the nature of God Himself.
TGS, yes, a scientist came up the the atom bomb, which – through MAD – gave europe more years of peace than in long term memory. An atom bomb helped end WWII. A scientist discovered penicillin. Scientists got us to the moon. Scientists, funded by the government, through MIT, helped create the internet.
Jim K, the argument is that science should not be politicized. The argument is NOT that the argument has been settled. It is because precisely because it HAS NOT been settled that the best option is that of democratic rule. I see stem cell research as saving lives in the long run. You do not. I see it as helping people live longer, and more full lives; you see it as killing. We disagree, and in the public sphere, no decision has been made. You cannot suddenly refer to God as the maker of policy here – we separated supernatural claims from public policy two hundred years ago.
I’m very troubled by these early days of this Presidency. One of the first things he did was reinstate funding to the NGOs for abortion and family planning services overseas. His appointment for HHS counts as one of her friends and major contributors an abortionist who disregards the law and provides abortions VERY LATE into the pregnancies for a large fee. Now this.
Obama is revealing himself. Many of us caught glimpses of what would be during the campaign but we were scoffed at and drowned by the sea of hapless hope-sters. Will people EVER learn not to invest their hope in a politician?
Obama said he won’t allow federal funds for “reproductive cloning,” but punts the decisions on what kind of cloning to fund for research and destruction to a committee. He’s made a decision to reverse a Bush decision, but not really a complete decision. That seems to be below his pay grade.
The assertion in instance after instance that what Obama decides to do is the “new consensus” because he won the election is arrogant. People voted for Obama for a wide variety of reasons.
I see stem cell research as saving lives in the long run. You do not.
Manipulative rubbish! The issue isn’t “stem cell research”, it’s the killing of embryos for a particular type of stem cell research. Research that wasn’t banned under Pres. Bush, who merely declined to spend tax money to do it. More manipulation. Research that at this point, may be unnecessary given what we know about adult stem cells.
http://www.articlearchives.com/government/government-bodies-offices-heads/2181825-1.html
This is clearly about abortion and it’s justification. It’s certainly not about “science”.
You can’t seperate science from ethics and morality. You can and never could. Obama and JW are using a utilitarian, end justifies the means, for the greater good morality/ethic. It’s not a Christian ethic, but it is one. In addition Obama is also using a calculation that it will bring him votes. This is also a moral consideration.
So letls not hear any mor nonsence that sicience is just science and that it is moral and ethicaly neutral.
Can’t type or spell this morning. Let’s try again:
You can’t separate science from ethics and morality. You can’t and never could. Obama and JW are using a utilitarian, end justifies the means, for the greater good morality/ethic. It’s not a Christian ethic, but it is one. In addition Obama is also using a calculation that it will bring him votes. This is also a moral consideration.
So let’s not hear any more nonsense that science is just science and that it is moral and ethically neutral.
Plecenta stem cell (PSC) research shows more promise than embryonic stem cell research (ESC) — all the studies of which has shown it to be an abysmal failure!). Yet this is never mentioned by the proponents of ESC use. It’s pro-abortion in (a very slim) disguise.