![]() | ||||||
| Blogs | Articles | Organizations | Biography | Jack's Book | Contact Information | Links |
|
| ||||||
|
Jack Sisson's The Beginning of Human Life Blog | |
|
Many people believe human life begins at conception. Others acknowledge life at conception, but differ about when that life becomes human (versus an indistinguishable mass of cells). We hope to both start and then further dialogue regarding the beginning of human life. We have been preparing for this discussion since 1986. |
Monday, October 23, 2006Stem Cells in the News
The New Jersey state assembly is moving toward passage of a bill that would provide $270 million for stem-cell research, including the controversial embryonic stem cells. The bill, already approved by a legislative panel, now needs approval by the full Assembly before moving to the state Senate.
Not surprising, the state's anti-embryonic stem-cell force (I really object to these groups' co-option of the terms "pro-life" and "right to life", as if those of us who support embryonic stem-cell research are anti-life) has raised its voice in opposition, with Republican lawmakers trying to ammend the bill to prohibit funding research involving embryonic stem cells. We can only hope that the full Assembly follows its panel's recommendation, and sends this very worthwhile bill on the the Senate. Read the article here. *************************************************************************** Elsewhere, in this opinion piece from The Cornell Sun, a college senior makes the argument (one of several) that Bush was right in denying increased federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research because some people are against it (duh), and it's not right to use their tax dollars for something they're against. Why should the taxes of embryonic stem cell research opponents be used to fund it? Unlike abortions, which are paid by medical insurance, and not the taxes of the American public, embryonic stem cell research would be funded by government money that comes from taxes.Unfortunately for her argument, the writer did not follow this train of thought far enough. I am opposed to the death penalty. Many other people are also opposed to the death penalty. So far it hasn't seemed to bother the government one iota that it's using my tax dollars to kill people. I've heard no talk of privitizing executions. And oops. There's that nasty little war in Iraq that I have never supported, although I support our troops who keep getting sent back into the mess. (I think everyone who plasters one of those "Support our troops" bumper stickers on their car should be forced to spend at least one day at a VA hospital with returning injured veterans. Then let them ponder how slapping a stupid bumper sticker on their SUV supports ANYONE in a meaningful way.) Don't even get me started about how many of my tax dollars have been dumped into the Iraq quagmire. So, Hannah, you should lose your "federal tax dollars" argument. The citizenry's moral acceptance of an issue has never been part of the government criteria for spending our money, unless that issue happens to fit the sitting Administration's agenda. |
LinksBrain PillsRoe v. Wade Stem Cells Stem Cell Fight! Bearing Right Moral Monkey? Op-ed Dave's site Stem Stall Screamers Bush the hypocrite ArchivesJune 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 December 2005 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 March 2009 November 2009 April 2010 |