Posted on 06/14/2007 9:10:31 PM PDT by asparagus
Did I hurt your feelings? Why should I feel like a victim? I'm not running for President. You don't like Mitt, that's fine. Hate is a strong word, but it was used in fun.
I've been away too long from this thread. The party ended and the rats came out to eat the leftovers.
but why didn’t Mitt say in the debate that it is wrong to use human embryos for stem cells rather than saying that it would be fine...he wouldn’t use federal money for it, that’s good. But he didn’t take a strong stand against it when he said his change of heart about abortion was due to seeing the insanity of human stem cell research.
Mitt Romney has continually made strong statements in defense of life. I think vetoing the embryonic stem cell bill is a pretty strong statement. Romney Stands For Life
Yet, he is pragmatic as well and approaches issues cognizant of the reality at hand.
He is the only candidate who has spoken out about the new and exciting research which may provide an answer to the stem cell dilemma. Instead of just paying lip service to the issue like many others, he is involved in seeking solutions:
A number of such techniques have begun to emerge in recent years, and as last week’s exciting scientific publications showed, some of the world’s best stem-cell scientists are hard at work bringing them to fruition. Moreover, two of these techniques, Altered Nuclear Transfer and Direct Reprogramming could produce patient-specific stem-cell lines for the study of diseases. Our government should encourage and support these scientific developments, rather than undermine the effort to find a solution. Finding cures to diseases using methods that uphold ethical principles and sustain social consensus should be the objective of America’s approach to stem-cell research.
Rather than looking for such solutions, however, the Democrats in Congress have decided to turn back the clock and pass a bill that only sets research and ethics at odds, a bill they know will be vetoed by President Bush. This familiar Washington approach to controversial issues is just wrong. On matters of such significance, we should try to bring the country together, not further divide it.
Support for ethical biomedical research should be part of our collective identity as a noble society. Instead of turning the quest for cures into a partisan battle, Congress should embrace the exciting emerging lines of research that could meet the goals of all sides in the stem-cell debate. A bill to support just such a positive approach to stem cell research passed the Senate in April by a whopping margin of 70 to 28. But the House Democratic leadership, choosing politics over the prospect of consensus on science, appears to be unwilling even to allow a vote on that hopeful legislation.
It is time to move beyond typical Washington politics, and offer support for stem-cell research techniques that bring science and ethics together to promote life, protect life, and save lives. ~~MItt Romney
_________________________
It does not behoove Republicans to appear anti-science. There is no reason why we cannot work towards scientific discoveries that promote cures for diseases while still respecting life in its earliest stages. It doesn't always have to be one or the other.
right, but then why didn’t Mitt say in the debate that it is wrong and evil to use human embryos for research rather than saying it would be fine? I mean, it was the main reason why he changed to the strong pro life position. I beleive he knows it is wrong, I just don’t know why he didn’t say it in that part of the debate?
The exception (which a majority of Americans agree with just as they do with the exception for abortion in the event of risk to the life of the mother, rape or incest), is that if the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, then they should instead be used for research instead of thrown in the trash.
I think most Americans agree with that, even though we may not.
Over time, more and more pro-life people will be arguing that those embryos should be put up for adoption and not destroyed for research (the snow babies).
However, the problem you get into then is ---> REALITY. I don't think you can force parents to give up their embryos for adoption. Many people don't want their flesh and blood out there walking around being raised by someone else. Selfish? Very. Reality? Yes.
Therefore, you WILL have embryos discarded in the trash no matter what. An argument can be made then, that they should be used for good.
The first hurdle is stopping them from creating new embryos for destruction. Cloning for death. That is pure evil and should be stopped. Hoping that we can convince everyone NOT to do life-saving research on embryos already slated for destruction is a much harder sell though.
It is very complicated. That's why it is so important that we look for solutions. That is the avenue chosen by Mitt. It is realistic. The essay he wrote regarding the new technology is very hopeful. The best answer is finding a scientific solution that solves the problem ---- protects the sanctity of life while allowing ground-breaking research to continue.
ok...wondering why Mitt appointed several gay rights activists to some positions of influence? I know some think that eternal vigilance is twisting the facts but I have seen the gay rights activist appointments from other sources too. I can understand hiring gays,some of whom one would not even know that they are, to regular jobs; but to appoint big mouth gay agenda types that could use their influence to further their agenda is bad. And why didn’t he fire the gays leading the youth committee to the public school system. They were pushing the “normalcy” of gayness for sometime before he told them to change their tune. But what good is it to tell gay advocates to just focus on suicide prevention when they don’t even realize that that very lifestyle is causing suicidal tendencies because it goes so against the conscience. I believe Mitt is a good man but just have alot of questions about him that are unanswered and we must have a much more conservative leader than GW if we are going to survive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.