The Republican-against Republican arguments over embryonic stem-cell research, an issue now in a complicated tangle with cloning and college funding, has folks talkingabout the "Kansas-ization" of Missouri and its GOP, reports the Kansas City Star. Good luck with that.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
13 Comments
For those who would like INFORMED discussion, from both sides.This is a good start:http://www.isscr.org/public/ethics.htm
The Ethics of Human Embryonic Stem Cell ResearchBy Louis Guenin
As a public service, the ISSCR provides this page to assist readers who wish to inquire into the moral debate concerning embryonic stem cell research.
Introduction: Thinking About EthicsEthics is not a specialized body of knowledge. Ethics is a conversation about questions. In that conversation, everyone has a place. We all have moral intuitions. Concerning embryonic stem cell research, the question that we face takes a familiar form: does the end justify the means? In some moral situations, one or more of us might answer that question in the affirmative. For example, someone might conclude that the end of teaching lifelong lessons to a child justifies imposing discipline as a means. In other situations, it may seem that the end does not justify the means. Most of us would not approve of robbing a bank as a means to the end of helping the poor.
Moral Treatment of EmbryosIn the case of embryonic stem cell research, the end that scientists hope to achieve is the relief of human suffering. That this is a humanitarian and worthy end is not in dispute. The controversy is about the means, namely, the consumption of donated embryos. More particularly, embryonic stem cell research and therapy would use donated embryos that, by virtue of donor instructions, will never enter a uterus. Is it permissible to use those means to that end? Ancient religious texts provide little guidance. The ancients did not understand embryology, did not imagine that scientists might create and nurture what we now understand as embryos in the laboratory. Nor can we get an answer from laboratory experiments. There is no test for whether an embryo is a person. Instead we are left to our own devices, to our own moral reasoning.continue with link above….
This intra-GOP fight is part of a national contest between the old-line Southern “Dixiecrats” who have changed over to the GOP and the old-line “country club” Republicans.
I watched C-Span yesterday while the House was discussing this bill. I was amazed (again) at how many of the Representatives had no idea what they were voting for or against. They had their opinions and were possessed of their own ideas (too many times based on no facts). The only embryos this bill allows to be used for research are those that WILL BE destroyed as medical waste. What a bunch of stupid people we Americans elected.
Ms Inks,I beleive you refer to the honorable gentleman from Kanass,Mr. Brownback.
SCREW THE ENVIRONMENT….SAVE THE SNOWFLAKES!
BTW, for those of you opposed to ESC research, the link I provided at the top also includes your side’s logical arguments.Good stuff from both sides by credible proffesionals.
Yeah, honorable… Once we were amazed that an actor could become president, now we accept the fact that our elected officials are actors on the world stage. They memorize their lines and deliver them well enough to convince those that aren’t paying attention anyway.
I like my nic of Ms Inks.
Thank you.I’m proud of my nic coining ability.Ksgolfnut seems to be quite proud of his new moniker, Balls.Fleetwood, although far less appreciative of my super moniker abilities, seems to tolerate it.
While I’m thinking about it,hmmmm……..will heretofore be known by me only as “hummer”.HA
A new report says 82 million Americans are now without medical insurance.But this is actually good news for the Bush administration,because now the only way to get affordable health care is to join the army.
Tracy,
No offense to our doctors in uniform, but how many service men and women are thrilled to go to base doctors?
Sometimes it’s a ‘what you see is what you get’ thang.
I’m glad you threw hmmm in there for the honor of a nic you coined — it was scary to be alone in the company of nutz and fleet.
RD,The HMO Urologist who botched the surgery on my wife, causing her death, immediately enlisted in the Air Force to avoid malpractice suits (he apparently had several other cases pending).I have also known some very good doctors (one with a specialty in facial reconstruction) who joined the military during Viet Nam because they felt that it was a place they could do the most good while sharpening their skills in their specialties. One is now a member of Doctors Without Borders. I lost track of the others, but I assume wherever they are, they are practicing exemplary medicine.These are the kind of practitioners our soldiers deserve; not the ones hiding out from lawsuits!
As if Missouri has anything to brag about. They were one of the last states to even allow diapers to be sold on Sunday. Shhesh!
The Republican party is not 2 but 3 parties. You have the neo cons that believe in limits on personal rights and foreign adventurism. You have the corporate cons that believe anything that might get in the way of a dollar is bad and you have the western cons that pretty much oppose government all together and despise gun control.