Obama reverses Bush-era stem cell policy

I don't think anyone is doing that on this specific issue. Stem cell research funding has been something that many voters - democrats, swing, and even some republicans - have wanted reinstated for years.

No need to hold back ruberube, tell us how you really feel!

Personally I think they've just seen too many science fiction movies. That's the only thing that can explain their 'slippery slope' mentality.

If we allow stem cell research to cure diseases, then how much longer until the world is taken over by robot clone soldiers with laser beams?

If we allow gays to marry, then how much longer until people start marrying sheep and dogs and creating hideous human-sheep hybrids that will overthrow mankind?

If we allow evolution to be taught in schools, then how much longer will it be for the mutant apocalypse where teenagers shall rise up and literally stab Jesus in the face?

It's like they've forgotten that we do have laws, and can regulate scientific research reasonably without starting some kind of Armageddon spurred on by our horrible creations.

steven. liberalism isn't a religion. your thinking about conservatism

agreed. the conservatism philosophies are not religious in base.

I love how you pointed out death penalty and war. Where did Love thy Neighbor get thrown out the window?

Go Christian Liberals w00t w00t! =]

Kevinlionheart

You seem to be quite a literalist when it comes to the bible. So, if it isn't mentioned in the bible than anything goes? If the Bible doesn't specifically say its wrong it must be fine?

You are making HUGE generalizations in your post, get a grip and drop the us vs them crap.

1 - I don't fight this research, I support it. I don't know if using embryos is ethical, but I support the opinions of those who don't, and take them into account, especially since many experts say human embryos are not needed, that Umbilical cells are just as good.

2 - Personally, I eat meat sparingly and thankfully, and avoid killing anything I don't have to.

3 - I support war only when it comes to protecting my family and country, and even when I support it, I deplore it. Sadly sometimes war IS necessary.

4 - I oppose both abortion and the death penalty, of the two, I think abortion is a much greater offense because babies are innocent.

5 - I donate a ton of time to a non-profit that fights AIDS in Africa, and my church leadership and members have taken trips to Africa and donated tons of time and cash to fight AIDS as well as civil engineering projects. I good friend lives there full time, building wells and septic systems with donated money for poor Africans. And yes, they are all Christians, and mostly politically conservative.

Maybe if you pulled your head out and looked around at what many churches are doing these days you could get off of YOUR political agenda and join up to create some real change, and not the empty political BS 'change' we are seeing in the headlines.

flyingfaders--

Yes, your church sounds like it is doing a lot of good and I praise that, but how is Lionhearts a political agenda and your points are not?

Please explain "since many experts say human embryos are not needed, that Umbilical cells are just as good" where has this been proven?

You say that you "support war only when it comes to protecting my family and country, and even when I support it, I deplore it. Sadly sometimes war IS necessary."

I agree that sometimes war is necessary, but what has IRAQ done to us that we need to be killing thousands of innocent citizens there??

Flying, I specifically said 'Fundamentalist Christian Community', if you don't take the Bible as the true word of God and completely infallible, then you and your church are probably not part of that belief system I am referring to that uses the Bible as justification for a political agenda. The community that specifically states that it's agenda is to make America a Christian Nation to enact God's will and wrath on the world.

As for your points of view, I could debate each one with you.

Abortion - Yes, BABIES are innocent - but the debate is over whether a microscopic collection of cells is a 'baby' or not?

War - you're correct, sometimes war is necessary. But I'm referring to the people supporting our current war in Iraq. With no WMDs and no connection to Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden - exactly what is the justification for the death and killing?

The fact that you eat meat 'sparingly' is admirable, but it doesn't change the fact that a living organism with a more complex cell structure than any fetus or embryo ever terminated died for your meal.

As far as the death penalty and AIDS work, again I'll point out that I was referring specifically to the Evangelical Fundamentalist Christian community. You thankfully have a few differences. I don't know anything about your church and I'm sorry you took it as a personal insult. No one is saying that Christianity hasn't done a lot of good in the world. So has Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. Hell so has Scientology for that matter. I'm referring to a specific branch of Christianity that has a very specific set of beliefs that I feel are destructive. I'm talking about the Christianity warped by fundamentalists. That 'Evangelical Christian vote' that Republicans clamor for.

Finally, someone who sees what the real issue is. You are 100% correct. My only big issue with the stem cell research is why are our tax dollars being used to fund research for big pharma??

Why don't we use tax dollars to help big oil look for more reserves of oil, so when they find and produce it we can pay for the gasoline it makes? Same thing.

About 6 years ago I read a story in the Washington Post about lobbyists registered as working for the pharmicutical companies, they out numbered the members of congress by about 60.
Why is it they can afford about 400 lobbyists but not their own research?

Better health and cures for disease through stem cell research? Fine..

Our government should NOT be funding this research however, just get the hell out of the way and let it happen.!.!

Flyingfaders you have no idea what you are even talking about...

Please explain "Some experts debate that research is not even necessary."

I have never seen this anywhere.

Embryonic stem cells are the future, and when you or someone you knows needs a stem-cell therapy, (I almost feel you should be denied this but I'm not that cruel), you'll be thanking Obama.

Most people who disagree with stem-cell research are not physically needing of a potential cure, or don't know anyone at the moment that are. I bet if you were paralyzed, your comment would have been completely different.

I am Christian, and my voice says Yes on Stem-Cell Research. Stemcell research is Pro-Life.

Flyingfaders you are correct. Thank you for being one of the few who knows what's going on. michaelx, just so you know, scientists have made new stem cells, in the lab. So now they can continue their research.

Funding research like this with Federal money means that the results of such research will belong to the Government, not just the pharmaceutical companies.

Also, the ban on funding for embryonic stem cell research included recreation of such cells in a lab setting.

In addition, the Pharmaceutical companies aren't generally in the business of researching new technologies that could make the product they sell obsolete. Without federal funding, this research would not move forward.

And we ARE using tax dollars to look for more reserves of oil. We are also using federal funding to pay for researching new technologies to replace dependence on fossil fuels. So yeah, I guess you're right - same thing.

I do concede your point, KevinLionheart.

Yes he inherited it, I will give you that, but he is making it WORSE!

Time will tell. My question is if you and others will admit if his actions will have actually helped

cybexg. Don't you know the good ole' conservative/republican philosophy?

The bad times during Bush were inherited by Clinton who was such a bad president.... The good times during the Clinton Admin was inherited by Bush Sr. who was absolutely amazing. You see when times turn around under Obama it will be because of what Bush implemented under his admin...

Good ole' philosophies of the conservative party. Don't you also know that they would rather our country fail, then let "liberal" policies succeed?

Republicans never cease to amaze me by their "wisdom"....

Heh, yeah I never understood that logic they pull. Surely a war that costs tens of billions of dollars per week and is never budgeted for or paid for couldn't have a bad effect on our economy - could it?

And yes, it WILL get worse. But it is not Obama's fault. It's called a recession.

Our deficit will be at it's worst in 2010 due to the spending plan attempting to save American home and business owners. But economists project that by 2011 the deficit will be nearly half of what it is now.

Only time will tell.

So the conservatives play the blame game but liberals never do? That is some conveniently selective reality. Keep up the us vs them mentality, that is always good for the country.

Want to get to the cause, read this 1999 article from the NYT, (hardly a conservative paper):
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F95826...

and this:

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=52743310063&h=ySBNq&u=AIt0s

Common sense will tell you that one person, even the President can only do so much to steer the economy, and even that is reactive. No one can see the future.

But what Obama has done over the last couple months, and continues to do, (massive debt and spending) is probably going to cause harm for a long time to come. Why didn't he stimulate the economy by just giving you $30,000 instead of bailing out banks? At least your grand-children would be paying back something you actually got.

Boo f**ing Hoo. He inherited it. Well he begged, decieved, cajoled, fought, paid, for the job for nearly 2 years and now he's whining it's "not my mess, I'm just the guy who's trying to fix it"?
I'm already tired of the whining, he wanted it, he's got it. Shut up and fix it, or turn it over to someone else.

Its a government issue because we give the scientists tax dollars....DUHHHHHH!

economic policies?... plusaf, was that you? I can't believe you remembered after all that time, must have been a couple of months ago. I think this is the first time I've commented on here since then.
Thanks for the call out.

A "REAL" president should consider all point of view not just the ones that agree with him or you.

You're right, a REAL president would have the mythical ability to please everyone all the time.

When I say REAL I mean a man who is willing to make the tough decisions and not default to the big book of Jewish fairy tales for the answers. Ideology (gods) have no place in science. Since gods are just imaginary friends for grown ups most scientists ignore the whole concept and focus on solving problems.

Even without religions this would still be a debate about where life begins and if artificially creating life devalues natural human life.

Religions just give people a basis for morality that they cannot necessarily form on their own. Remove religions and the debate about ethics and morality is still there.

No life is sacred. Who gives a shit when it begins and ends? This is like saying that everyone on the planet has to eat dirt because living things cannot be eaten. Celery is ALIVE! Cows are ALIVE!!! Should humans eat inorganic material or just die off because life is precious? You are a fucking dolt. You just want your philosophy treated like it is the truth. You don't give a shit about when life begins or ends. You are just hitting your talking points. Either ALL life is precious or NO life is precious. Anything is between is forced opinions and philosophies. You argument is based solely out of ideological rhetoric with nothing to back it up.

Wow, seek help. I was simply offering a counterpoint.

All laws are based on some system of morality or ethics. In a democracy this means that it is the generally accepted morals or ethics of a collective people as expressed through voting power which translates into laws.

So as a society we generally agree that human life begins when a child is born, as seen by our laws.

Your argument could be applied to all laws. If no life is sacred, why not legalize murder? Why should we care who the government goes to war with? Hell, why should we waste time researching stem cells for people with seemingly fatal illnesses? Why should we have any health care at all?

If no life is sacred, it's anarchy and we'll tear ourselves apart. If all life is sacred, we cannot exist. Society draws a line somewhere, and this discussion is about where that line is.

Seeing as how I am an anarchist that was kind of my point. Nothing is sacred.

Well Jason, you are entitled to you vote, and I will respect your faith if you respect mine.

All the funding Bush gave to (non-embyonic) stem cell research was not "moving"? He increased the funding, he only restricted it on controversial embryonic research. Don't be fooled by the media, who rarely tells the whole story.

I'm so proud of Obama signing this order! Not only is it a huge step in the right direction, it is a step at undoing what the Bush admin did to this country.