Sunday, July 23, 2006

The Maryland Journal


Last week you had two opinions for and two against stem cell research. The two Congressmen that oppose government funding used two arguments that I find curious and inconsistent. First, they noted that after years, the research hasn't yet produced concrete results. Interestingly, we have spent tens of billions of dollars on missile defense that also hasn't produced concrete results, yet I would imagine that the commentators support that strongly. The second argument is that they feel taxpayer dollars should not be spent on something that may find morally reprehensible. The same argument could be applied to the war in Iraq, which polls show is opposed by many more people than oppose stem cell research. In a country of 300 million people there will always be something our tax dollars fund that large groups find offensive. While I do not agree with those who oppose stem cell research I understand why their religious beliefs cause them to feel that way. On the other hand, your guest commentators tried to use "objective" arguments that were, at best, questionable.


Blogger Ronni said...

Jim heard/read somewhere that a possible new source of stem cells is baby teeth. If that turns out to be true, it will remove the need for embryos in the research.

Hopefully, there will be some tax money to spare.

Somebody should declare "slap your favourite senator" week, and line them up.

7:52 AM  
Blogger Mary K. Goddard said...

Yes, I heard that last week, and I heard yesterday that baby teeth are NOT a viable source--that it was overstated....I am beginning to doubt everthing I read about the stem cell debate now...too many people with too many agendas....

5:57 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home