« Casey, Obama, and the Common Good | Main | Making Marriage Cool »

August 28, 2008


"Wouldn't the "strictest ethical guidelines" include not killing a tiny, living human being?"

Wouldn't the "strictest ethical guidelines" include actually helping people instead of just offering hope? It seems that the ESCR has shown little actual delivery in terms of cures. How ethical is it to deceive people into a false hope that may never bear any fruit of actual cures. The ethical and responsible use of available funds is to invest it in the most verified promising area of SCR and that one has been shown to be adult stem cell research. It is better to offer cures than it is to offer hope.

This democratic careless thinking reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw this week that illustrates a similarly poor thinking. The sticker read "Well-behaved women rarely make history." My rejoinder on that is that it might be true, but they almost allways make a difference and that's just about always better than making history. It seems that whenever liberals try to make a positive step, they manage to do it in a way that leads to negative results and that is simply the result of bad thinking and it seems to be habitual.

I agree, Louis. Just over thirty-six years ago, at the age of eighteen months, I was diagnosed with Juvenile Diabetes (Type 1).

In my lifetime I have had well over 20,000 shots of insulin, and by this point in my life statistically should be blind, suffering from kidney failure, missing one or more limbs, have heart disease or any combination of the above.

Despite this, so far I have been very blessed and have no complications from diabetes. I am an active husband and father who looks forward to the day I can say goodbye to this lifetime companion.

I find the amount of time and energy that has been wasted on making human life a commodity to be traded for the "hope" of future cures to be appalling.

In spite of the millions of dollars wasted in advertising and lobbying for ESCR (which I believe is nothing more than a way to devalue human life in the name of something supposedly valuable), not to mention on actual 'research,' there have been no positive outcomes from this destructive research, and yet major advances (as noted above) from non-embryonic stem cell research.

I find the DNC's use of this waste of time as an opportunity for name-calling and further propagation of false hope to be abhorrent.

It would seem that there are people out there, as astounding as it seems, who are deliberately misleading people about the reality of this research in order to drive their own destructive agenda, which I can only presume to be that of further devaluing human life.

From someone who is directly affected by their diabolical nonsense, shame on them.

Don`t be pessimistic. What are we without the hope in our hearts -that someday those animal-studies can be transferred to humans?
If it is published in "Nature" - then would you call it a lie? Or false hope? Why? It is hope itself.Things found out by Harvard graduates, Proffessors, scientists. Don`t close your eyes or heart to it.

The comments to this entry are closed.