I believe the Bush federal funding policy is morally defensible. Research is only being done on embryos that have already been detroyed, therefore there can be no debate on "when does life begin" or backlash from "killing" embryos. It is mirally defensible because it is the safe route to allow some research. Personally, I feel it is too restrictive. Once the embryos from before 2001 run out, no federal funding will be available for further research. This could be a stop to cutting edge research.
I also believe that the President's decision is morally defensible. Funding such things has always been a sticky situation because of the people's moral beliefs. These are already dead embryos so there should not be a problem. He made a good compromise. I don't think its too restrictive. If he decided to provide federal funding for all destroyed embryos, there could easily be corruption. If or when the embryos do run out, the current President can decide what he wants to do.
I, too, believe the President's decision is morally defensible. Since the scientists are not killing the embryos to do research, they are already destroyed, I do not see the harm in doing research on them it could lead to a cure for serious diseases in the future. I feel that his decision is too restrictive. The scientists could be in the middle of finding a cure that works, and August 9, 2001 comes and no more funding because the "expiration date" has arrived. Then the scientists would not be able to continue the research that could save thousands of lives.
Let's mix it up... I am going to say that President Bush's policy is not morally defensible. Funding research for after the embryo has already been destroyed is only encouraging this practice to continue. If you are using tax payers money to fund a school that was originally started with drug money, you are still supporting drugs in a round about way. Far fetched I know but it's all i could think of. The good part about bush's policy is that it is restricted to the original sixty lines. There are other ways to do research with destroying embyros that have the potential for life.
Assuming Bush to be pro-life by believing an embryo constitutes a human life, and he most ardently is, I think he was wrong to federally fund embryonic stem cell research. In the best case scenario, he was naive. Private researchers will continue to produce genetically diverse stem cell lines even after August 9, 2001. Five, ten, however many years down the line when more stem cell lines are needed, all the new president has to do is follow the precedent set by Bush- "only these specific stem cell lines derived from embryos before this specific date are eligible for federal funding, and only because the life and death decision has already been made". It's a sorry cycle and not morally defensible.
However, Obama, as a pro-choice leader, is not concerned with the same moral issue that troubled Bush, and fully supports stem cell research. The Bush funding policy is too restrictive for Obama's administration.
I think that this policy is not morally acceptable because this would begin a slippery slope because those embryos were apparently going to be "destroyed" so what is stopping others from deciding they will just destroy them and get funding to do research. I think that all stem cell research is wrong because an embryo has to suffer at the cost. I think that the funding is not too restrictive, but I still do not agree with it. I think that restrictions are good especially in such a topic as stem cell research, but I think that there has to be a careful line of what is allowed and not allowed.
This is morally defensible if the life and death decision has already been made. There are great advantages to stem cell research, and if there is a conceptually moral way to precede I think this comes pretty close. It may be too restrictive because it gives a specific date for embryos to be used.
I believe the Bush federal funding policy is morally defensible. Research is only being done on embryos that have already been detroyed, therefore there can be no debate on "when does life begin" or backlash from "killing" embryos. It is mirally defensible because it is the safe route to allow some research. Personally, I feel it is too restrictive. Once the embryos from before 2001 run out, no federal funding will be available for further research. This could be a stop to cutting edge research.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that the President's decision is morally defensible. Funding such things has always been a sticky situation because of the people's moral beliefs. These are already dead embryos so there should not be a problem. He made a good compromise. I don't think its too restrictive. If he decided to provide federal funding for all destroyed embryos, there could easily be corruption. If or when the embryos do run out, the current President can decide what he wants to do.
ReplyDeleteI, too, believe the President's decision is morally defensible. Since the scientists are not killing the embryos to do research, they are already destroyed, I do not see the harm in doing research on them it could lead to a cure for serious diseases in the future. I feel that his decision is too restrictive. The scientists could be in the middle of finding a cure that works, and August 9, 2001 comes and no more funding because the "expiration date" has arrived. Then the scientists would not be able to continue the research that could save thousands of lives.
ReplyDeleteLet's mix it up... I am going to say that President Bush's policy is not morally defensible. Funding research for after the embryo has already been destroyed is only encouraging this practice to continue. If you are using tax payers money to fund a school that was originally started with drug money, you are still supporting drugs in a round about way. Far fetched I know but it's all i could think of. The good part about bush's policy is that it is restricted to the original sixty lines. There are other ways to do research with destroying embyros that have the potential for life.
ReplyDeleteAssuming Bush to be pro-life by believing an embryo constitutes a human life, and he most ardently is, I think he was wrong to federally fund embryonic stem cell research. In the best case scenario, he was naive. Private researchers will continue to produce genetically diverse stem cell lines even after August 9, 2001. Five, ten, however many years down the line when more stem cell lines are needed, all the new president has to do is follow the precedent set by Bush- "only these specific stem cell lines derived from embryos before this specific date are eligible for federal funding, and only because the life and death decision has already been made". It's a sorry cycle and not morally defensible.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Obama, as a pro-choice leader, is not concerned with the same moral issue that troubled Bush, and fully supports stem cell research. The Bush funding policy is too restrictive for Obama's administration.
I think that this policy is not morally acceptable because this would begin a slippery slope because those embryos were apparently going to be "destroyed" so what is stopping others from deciding they will just destroy them and get funding to do research. I think that all stem cell research is wrong because an embryo has to suffer at the cost. I think that the funding is not too restrictive, but I still do not agree with it. I think that restrictions are good especially in such a topic as stem cell research, but I think that there has to be a careful line of what is allowed and not allowed.
ReplyDeleteThis is morally defensible if the life and death decision has already been made. There are great advantages to stem cell research, and if there is a conceptually moral way to precede I think this comes pretty close. It may be too restrictive because it gives a specific date for embryos to be used.
ReplyDelete