You people?  The research was vetoed by George Bush remember?  There was a big stink about that, but obviously you weren't listening!  This is way beyond politics, this is not about who voted for whom, which seems to be the only focus you have.

No you don't. You see what is written, but you're not really reading!  In your head are a few key phrases that you see (heard) and nothing else anyone says matters.

You're right, how else can anything else get done, if not for private dollars, then federal money does it!    And as for the rest, you said it I didn't!

Donna when a private company invents a new product, the shareholders (i.e. investors) share the profits or losses. When the government is involved all taxpayers share the losses, if it's profitable they hand it off to some company and it's shareholders share the profit. How is that good? Why are taxpayers the ones that must take the risk? Can you show me a gov. sponsored research project that has provided profit back to the taxpayer as a direct result of its investment?  

Government funding for the research was vetoed, not the research itself. Private firms could do the research, but without gov. $$$. This did not include adult stem cell research.

JDKEEPSMILIING,

Thanks for writing the article...

In contrast to adult stem cells, an embryonic stem cell is a human life in its embryonic stage, a stage we all passed through in growing to the stage we are today. So the moral question arises.....Should the government sanction killing innocent embryonic life even if good could come from it?

I say no...research that kills human living embroyos can never be justified and to know my tax monies go toward this makes my blood boil.

I haven't as of yet read all the comments, so please forgive me if I'm repeating a point that has already been made.

To date, there is absolutely shred of evidence that human embryonic stem cells will cure or treat dreadful diseases such as these.

On the other hand, during the time of Pres. Bush's ban on funding embryonic stem cells for research, the incentive for scientists to develop ethical and morally acceptable methods using adult stem cells...and it paid off....in 6 years, adult stem cell research has produced cures and treatments for many diseases and ailments.

What? so Utilitarianism thinking about human life is good? The ends justify the means is good? 

Thank you Nitro for reaffirming my point. I guess I wasn't listening too well to the news when they said "no funding" as oppose to "no research".

I agree with this as well in a moral sense and also in a religious sense. I also question, like Nitro said above, why should we (the tax payers) be footing the bill for something someone else will financially benefit from? Not to mention that with all the (pardon my Frennch) BS about healthcare being expensive, how will anyone benefit from these cures if they can't even afford them? Even Obama's univeral answer will no make these possible cures free.

BTW JD, even though we disagree, this is a great article. I love these kinds of debates where we say what we feel without actually insulting other people. Right forever?

Yes good article.

I have a side qestion that I cannot wrap my head around. If so many of you deplore abortion, and see this policy as a part of the abortion issue, why are there not massive protests outside fertility clinics? These are where almost all of these embryos come from. It's not the abortion clinic that is storing thousands of embryos. Where is the anger at the fertility clinic for creating a bunch of embyos and then throwing them out? If you are not mad at that, then you cannot be mad at this, becuase instead of being thrown out, they are being used for research purposes, which is at least some positive out of the situation.

2nd, no one at all has commented on my idea of putting restirctions on this type of research like Michigan has. With these commonsense restrictions, effectively making the abortion embryos a non-sequiter, what is the resistance? Thoughts please....

Charles,

    I know that its gets opeople fired up when they think of their tax money going to things they dont like, but unless you propose we go back to living in a loose confederacy based on the Articles of Confederation, that is not giong to happen. I happen to be morallty opposed to war, I cannot see how you can be a Christian and support military activity that is not stricly defense (as in someone is invading Florida kind of defense). The God of the New Testament certainly favors peace over violence. So I can say the same thing about war money that you and Lulapilgrim can for abortions, doesn't mean it's going to happen. That is the burden of a federal stystem. I suppose we could all designate funds on our tax return, but that would just make the IRS bigger, which would piss everyone off.

It is amazing you think that I insult you when I ask you questions. Consider this the last time we have a conversation. This is not the first time you have said this.

JD, agreed, great article!

The cruel experimentation on human embyors is a ghoulish "science" where babies aren't looked at as gifts from Heaven made in God's Image and Likeness but are degraded into being viewed and used as "products" in a biotech industry.

There are only so many concerned people in the pro-life movement to go around to protest. And beyond that, do you know how many riduculous anti-free speech and association laws and restrictions there are (so called buffer zones) that prohibit protesting outside abortuaries?

And, it's my understanding that fertility clinics don't throw the embryos out, they sell them for experimentation to those in the horrific world of eugenics.

JDKEEPSMILING  POSTS

Are you aware that every day here in America 4,000 innocent unborn babies are slaughtered in the womb in the abortuaries of Planned Parenthood? 6,000 on a busy Saturday? If we were talking about any other class of people and the violent act of murder being perpetrated against them daily, would the public be just as happy about their tax money going towards that?

Would Americans approve of the continued murder if they were assured that the government was not paying for them? Of course not! It disgusts me.

can you show me what you're talking about in particular to show your justification for no war?