President Obama to Sign Executive Order on Stem Cell Research Monday

?

Though I stated in earlier comments my views on genetic tampering, I did not really delineate what I mean by tampering, and can also sympathise deeply with those who know that science has the potential to alleviate terrible suffering. With regards to this, criteria for what constitutes %quot;dangereous tampering%quot; is open. Immanuel Velikovsky a psychoanalyst and correspondant with Einstein, believed that all history was the product of transiently occuring, unnoticed events-i.e.-dust flying in the eye produces a sore that eventually leads distorts visual perspective and leads to a scintitific outlook and career as an artist painting perspectives. I would not apply my argument for illegal genetic tampering to the activity of finding and moving the dust particle whose initial event and cure both can possibly come about by (witnessable) happenstance. Diabetes can conceivably happen from material lodging under the skin. The important fact in these issues involves the discrimination between normal physioloogical adjustments to the dust, and the presence of the dust itself. One cannot, should not think to attempt to change the genetics and biochemistry of insulin metabolism as the disease may be not the result of a problem with it though a relief of suffering might be possible with this stragety-but is a dangerous tampering. I think it is possible that scientists might find that nature committs few flaws or errors, and that all that is ever observed,maybe all that is possible to occur, is adjustment to stress;in this probable event scientists would regret effecting actual changes. The actions of stem cells could conceivable be to evict, for example, an invaded dust particle. To breed stem cells or clone them specifically though may be to tread a dangerous ground if one seeks to effect directed changes in genetic development. To re-expose individuals to their own non genetically manipulated cells maybe less dangerous. To think to create embryos or use embryos for sacrifice to acquire stem cells is obviously not moral, a squandering abuse of life, of the gift of life. I think it is at %quot;happenstance%quot; that one can perceive a dividing line between urges to repetitively control based on a found luck and the amount of expense and energy force that one applies to effect a control-amount of applied force verses allowance of freedom for adjustment.This is just a thought experiment,potential example, but one must always keep his own balance in the seas of vices that rise and fall with history not to apply a vice(grip)to nature. In the problem presented of the dust in the eye of the scientist- artist, it is important that only a mechanical treatment for the dust is applied rather than a molecular genetics treatment for the irritated re-adusted eye. The logic of the non-proximal scientist combined with that of the practical, empathetic, hands on physician, can be blinding to both. The physician should not be lead to overstep, from his quarters, mankinds contract with nature,nature with mankind, that is based on a philosophy of a nonmalicious ultimate nature to nature, to unknowingly effect a maliciousness himself.

America,

"Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it."

Boy, did you get it!

Barack Hussein Obama

I strongly disagree with embryonic stem cell research. If the adult stem cells are as useful as they say then why not just use them? Why kill innocent precious life? I agree with half the statements above that if it is fertilized it is LIFE. I also agree that they are taking away the choice for LIFE. I was barely to young to vote and now I'm glad I was. I would've voted for Obama and suffered with disappointment in my choice.

Posted by badfish:
"lets be clear, embryos are NOT humans. They are just where they come from. Much like an apple seed is just a seed, not an apple."

Sorry, badfish. You are very mistaken. An embryo is as much a human being as you or I. Although it is in a much earlier stage of development, it has all the genetic information and material needed to develop into a mature human being. If we start limiting rights based on biological development, we are creating yet another form of prejudice.

The right to LIFE is the first and most fundamental of all Human Rights. When we deny this right, we contradict everything that this country stands for. Without the right to life, what else is there?

Contrary to what many people believe, embryonic stem cells are no more versatile than adult stem cells. Since Nov. 2007, scientists have been able to reprogram adult stem cells into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells), which have much more potential than stem cells harvested from an embryo. For one, these cells can be taken from the patient, which means they are an exact match for the patient, eliminating the problem of immune rejection. Also, adult stem cells have actually been proven useful in clinical studies, while independent researchers conducting embryonic stem cell research have not produced one successful cure or treatment.

Most people reading this probably have no clue that adult stem cells have the potential that they do because the liberal media has once again failed to inform the public about such advances because they are detrimental to the Democratic party platforms.

Even if you are unreligious, you should recognize that embryonic stem cell research is just a political scheme to garner more support and approval for the Obama administration. Obama is disregarding the progress made using non-controversial adult stem cell research because his party has long been proponents of embryonic stem cell research as the gold standard. They cannot admit when they are wrong, or learn to respect the religious beliefs of the American people.

Obama claimed that the majority of America was behind him, but I have yet to see the survey that he referenced. Even if a survey was used, the people of this country are ignorant of the advancements that have been made.

For those of you who enjoy bashing religion, remember what Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." He recognized that moral truths and ethics are important to science, and the integration of science and religion protects the world from repeating the tragedies of the Holocaust and the horrendous experiments undertaken by the Nazi regime.

Like all things where man is involved, no religion is perfect. Yet, the Judeo-Christian ideals that were incorporated into our society at its founding have had a huge part in our success as a nation.

For more info, read the article "Stem Cells- A Political History", from First Things magazine, or check out the book "Embryo- A defense of human life."

God Bless

If Al Gore would have been elected president as one blogger suggests, we wouldn't have to worry about Stem Cell Research...we would all be gone.Thank you President Bush for want you did in trying to keep our nation safe and babies alive. More should have been done and now our Nation faces such evil times with with so many at the helm who have no respect for human life. We can pray for our Nation and each do our part and one day we will all be judge by our Creator, the Author of Life. May God have mercy on us.

Though opposed to mans' tampering with the elemental form of the elements I find Mr. Obama's decision philosophically sound as it is the narrow incentives of the political economic face's of mankinds endeavors that funnel curiosities about the world into a directed narrow stream of immediate incentives and practicalities oriented specifically to cure the woes suffered by nature. This might not change if the hand of government is applied to control regardless of the ethics or correctness of science applications. Such changes must come from the scientists themselves. If Socrates is correct in his statement that "if one knows the truth he will act accordingly" I think that the truth is this case is not known to scientists, much less the populace that perceived a practical gain from descriptions of the nature of the research, if it can be accomplished without sacrificing embryos, though perceived that way is not a the real question regarding mankind and nature, and the possible natural ethic that exists.
I am a PhD biochemist, never worked who has had time to reflect to these issues ,the nature of science investigations, and its' misconceptions and missing knowing, even among the most reflective and respected experts. Science study, its' investigations are indeed intriguing, absorbing, promising the appliction of good intentions. it also, today’s’ science, relies on abstracted theories for which no direct verification is possible. Can one actually weigh an electron? What is it, a point of light, energy? as it might be visualized, but it is also postulated to release light energy and in no more a point of energy than color might be a color. Experiment says abstracted ideas explain observation, but the ideas refer to things that are beyond observability. These types of theory are all self subscribing, self supporting; proclamation that could be hardly immiscible with the proclamations of government and come to cloud the eyes of the scientists considerably upon the involvement of political authority. Today scientist pursue a full scale multifaceted military like assault on nature as the source of woe sufferings and disease in a blinded state that places mankind, in the same boat, necessarily a self target of his own prescribed scholastically oriented self denigrations in the name of total objectivity.
Lastly, as I do not have faith that scientists will come around to common sense, the hand of government upon will do no good also, I will state my reasoning in another way that may be more accessible to the common person.
Nature occurs as a genetic process, the process of change, emergence, presenting more and more exceptions to theory daily, not understood in the framework of modern science, though a loosening is taking place to view things more fluidly up to a point, we are all still in the dark. Essentially nature proceeds as men perceive themselves to proceed, father/mother to son, the nature of the parents ,their parents prescribe the nature of their offspring. In a big view men/women give birth to men/women but science in subtle confusions forgets these simple facts of life. The hand of men in the scientific manipulation of human biology and genetics ,especially at the miniature level of genes, or the physicist withthe energy (glue) of the atom, becomes also factor, component of the succeeding stages. His hand and ideas a genetic element, applied willfully as an instrument of change. What might that produce? regardless of what a consortium of the most intelligent and accomplished of scientists and experts, is unknown and cannot be beneficial as what is contained in the scientists hands has already come about, is a push backwards, and intervening element in the free courses of nature applied in an manner in which the scientist does not really have explanation for such things as cognition, consciousness , thinking, intelligence; researches these topic in the same ignorant manner, and has no conception of himself as mirror of nature, rather as a special example in which a forceful, push and shove, battle of who mirrors what is occurring. This is not a handsome behavior .
Though discussed in the earliest writing of civilization, in Plato, society has pursued more the statistically suggestive approaches of Aristotle, but an issue that is beyond the observed high human populations and mankinds’ civilization is at hand that I believe involves a chronic environmental issue-as immunological issues refer to what is against the self, cannot a physical/structural deterioration be called immunological , and is it not where a vast amount of knowledge has been gained that one should seek to apply it to effect further negative structural adjustment , rather than to seek to find and assault a potentially unique problem for which we might have treatment and remedies already available. Many modern scholars are active seeking clues to mankinds’ past in evidences from old civilizations but receive a small fraction of the funding as they border more on the serendipitous, chance, discovery rather than direct practicality with a greater probability of returns, though all life is commonly known as only a happenstance of events. It is admirable that, far be it, for the hands of transient leader to proclaim it so as law. Governments of the people obviously is not the same as people of the government. I had on occasion had to panhandle for street change to survive and received on one occasion, other than coins, the statement “real change comes from within”.

The world is evil and evil has become good. Lets destroy life to let some live. We have no faith and are so against God and then wonder why the world is in such state. Has anyone ever though that we have killed the child or have the cells of a child that may have become the scientist that had the ability to find the cure for these diseases, etc?
If these stem cells are fertilized it is murder, plain and simple, say what you want, justifying it by saying "if someone in your family was sick or you" none of that makes it right. I am saddened by sickness and I hate it but that not make this moral at all, Productive "maybe" but not right.
Who are we who cannot make life say when life begins, if you want to be the judge of that create your own life using your own resources!
So we equate this with a criminal facing the death sentence for whatever reasons. We Equate it with war, even though these practices kill many more? war is never nice but usually there is much more than meets the eye, plus people who die in war are casualties of and not murder, A person who dies in the electrical chair is not murdered, but a criminal that has been punished for their wrong (if they never did wrong would they would not beput to death what actions have the unborn done to face the same punishment?)by the Law, Government, the same Government that is now totally pro choice.

Yes God has given man a brain but bot to use it for evil unless you are saying that everything man creates is good and for good?

Help us LORD!

GOD IS JUST A STORY STEM CELL RESEARCH IS KEY, WE WOULD PROBALY HAVE A CURE FOR THINGS TODAY IF BUSH DIDNT BAN IT. BARACK IS OUR LEADER SUPPORT HIM OH YES DECRIMINILIZE POT ALREADY YOU SILLY SILLY PEOPLE

Why is it that people hate God so much? What did God ever do to you that justifies such hostility towards Him? What is the logic of using eighteen perfectly good people to patch up some drug addict or careless person that has abused themselves all of their lives and now are about to suffer the consequences of those years of abuse?

I may finally be able to get rid of my asthma in due time, maybe even my germinitis!

Well it was only a matter of time before the Sheeples Messiah decided he now be GOD. I guess its ok to sit down and negotiate with Terrorist and don't kill them but to support abortions and kill babies... This is what's come of our United States of America... a country of ME not not US...

Today, your news allowed the comments of a gentleman who is paralyzed from the waist down, stating that stem cell research will allow him to walk in the future. All reasearch shows embryonic stem cell research will never be the answer for such a cure. ABC as a responsible journalistic program should not dessiminate such information permitting the public to be confused without, not just the Christians for right to life, but an expert who can state unequivocally that stem cell research would never have the answer. You made it appear that choosing Right to Life is preventing paraplegics from walking. Other postings show how confused everyone is about the research. ABC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites, but you are for what you show on your network. ABC, just poor journalistic liscence and if Obama shows up with a paraplegic, this possibly is a sign of an uninformed President.

It is fascinating that no national news agency has the intestinal fortitude to let the public know that there is none, zero, no known medical success story involving embryonic stem cells. However there are enough medical "miracles" involving adult stem cells to monopolize every newscast for the next month! This is not an issue of helping "cure" people, but what is lucrative! Embryonic stem cell research makes people rich, even though it has not and probably will not produce any effective medical treatments. Adult stem cell use, does not need to be researched anymore. It has proven itself to be highly effective for medical treatment. However, there is no money in it for the researchers!
Anyone have the "guts" to publicize that kind of information?

to subsidize the destruction of precious human life. Millions of Americans strongly oppose that, and rightfully so. Taxpayer dollars should not aid the destruction of innocent human life.”----he should have used the same test when he supported the Iraq war..and the loss of innocent life, for the purpose of???? stem cells can save "innocent life"

Long overdue...imagine where we would be today IF...al gore had been elected president...8 years into becoming energy efficient, stopping global warming and that impending disaster,If Hillary had been able to get the support for her reform of healthcare 14 years ago-we would be light years ahead and well on the road to solving that problem--instead in the middle of the financial meltdown, we are having to address these other issues that are every bit as pressing as our economic collapse..our problems have been deferred for too long.....its no longer" the end is near"..the end is here...period..america understands the value of stem cell research for our future..

my husband has lewy body disorder . i am his caregiver .i feed, change diapers and lift him from place to place ,he is completly helpless. I DONT CARE WHERE STEM CELLS COME FROM !!.i would even take them from the religeous idiots that have posted here . anything that would help my husband is welcome.

Here's another way of looking at it. If someone was on life support, and had no brain, and no mouth with which to eat. No arms or legs to move. No eyes to see. No ears to hear with. Would you still keep them on life support as long as YOU live? That is the embyronic stem cell. If you pulled the plug, you could help someone else, who needs the life support.

I don't think that Publius understands that 90% of our medical research has come from ancient practices, banned in todays time. The next time you need an organ transplant, or blood transfusion, or an asprin for your headache, trials for success have resulted from someones death, in the past. As for the Life Raft scenario, fortunatly, the embyronic stem cell is not even on the raft with you. But your train of thought makes my believe you would still let the raft float by. Even if it was empty of life. Someone out there can still be saved, even if you choose not to be. Being against the research is like sinking the raft so no one can be helped.