I am well aware of the governement's support of scientific research - that's how I get paid...
The way I see it is that there are two extreme sides to the issue; one that holds stem cells to be the source for countless remedies and one that holds moral issue against the use of embryonic cells. I personally don't know if stem cells are as amazingly useful as billed...there hasn't been enough research in the area to say for sure. I think there is potential there and for that reason, the research should progress. You can't prevent research based on moral dilema. If that were the case, we would still be thinking the earth was flat and the center of the universe (I seem to recall reading in a social studies class that there was a great deal of fuss over claims that the earth was round and such discourse was frowned upon by the reigning figures of the time...you're the historian so I will bow to your knowledge as to that being true or false). The whole purpose of scientific research is to gain knowledge, especially if the gaining of said knowledge could provide a means of saving lives.
Back to the issue at hand, I do not hold there to be a moral issue here. Abortions are legal. There is a legal source of embryonic stem cells. It's not like scientists are out running around with their lab jackets and safety goggles pulling fetii (John's plural of fetus) out of women who want to keep their babies. I hold your morality arguement against embryonic stem cell research to be irrelevenat as long as abortions are legal. There is a ready source of cells that can be used for research and potential medical advancement. It's not like it's the researchers who are preventing the fetus from developing and being born. Baby's momma did that when she decided she didn't want no shorty. So I guess I also think Bush's law is mundane. I fail to see why, when there's a ready, continual source of cells, that research should be limited in any way.
