As you probably already heard, President Obama has reversed former President Bush's stem cell policies, allowing research utilizing a greater number of stem cell lines and letting scientists apply for federal grants for their research. Did Obama make the right decision?

Everyone is going to assume this lifted ban is about only embryo stem cells when it is not.  Also there will be strict guidelines implemented.  I'm happy this has happened, just wish it had been sooner, then maybe my father would have had a far better quality of life, since he had parkinson's disease. 

"Promoting science isn't just about providing resources, it is also about protecting free and open inquiry," Obama said. "It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

Finally!!!!!

Maybe we would have already found a "cure" for Parkinson's or many other diseases if embryonic stem cells were NOT used for experimentation. Because maybe that "embryo" could have had the chance to grow to an age where he/she could've come up with a cure, but I guess we will never know. And while I'm on the subject, let's take social security for example.. maybe there would be enough money to pay for it if America hadn't allowed millions of abortions to occur over the years. That's a lot of people that could have contributed to social security, but couldn't because they weren't "loud" enough for anyone to hear their opinion before their lives were ended abruptly. So in a nutshell.. How about we put money into other ways to create stem cells where a potential life doesn't have to be destroyed.

So individuals who are suffering from genetic disorders that they did not choose to have don't deserve a "life" because you think stem cell research is murder? In your mind, they deserve the disease they have? They don't have the same "right to life" as an embryo? Yes, they are alive, but they are forced to live with a condition stem cell research could cure. Many people who suffer from genetic disorders (Parkinson's, Huntington's, etc) don't get the same "life" as a person who doesn't have a genetic disease. Hm....sounds a bit contradictory to me.

If we are playing with hypotheticals here, then maybe someone who had Parkinson's could have discovered a cure if federal funding for stem cell research had been allowed for the last 8 years but they died of complications because of their own disease.

If stem cell research did 1/2 of what it promises investors woould be lining up around the block to get in on the ground floor. The cry for our tax dollars makes me believe it is little more than "pie in the sky'.

I saw an article on here...........it was a really good one, but basically they were doing stem cell research and are using the stem cells from testicles instead of embryos.   Research could find so much more..............there has to be an ethical way to police it.   Personally, at least I've finally learned another function of testicles! 

Great idea on the cords too.      Man, my kids were broughteth fort by a Colonel that reminded me of Hanibal Lector..................I bet he grilled my cord and poured a glass of chitza <orwhateverwinethat was>.        

In response to AustinNurse12, Isn't life with a disease much better than NO LIFE at all? And as I'm sure you are well aware that Parkinson's and Huntington's disease usually have an onset in middle to late ages... so, obviously they COULD develop a cure. So bacisally your rationale is erroneous, but that's the world today. We try to rationalize everything to make us feel better. It is not our decision to decide whether or not a life with a disease or no life at all would be better. And also, are you telling me that you do not believe an embryo is a human? I mean, science has proven that indeed an embryo is start of life. So how can you pick and choose which part of science you want to "believe" in? Or how do you decide when the age of a human makes them more deserving of life since a zygote is as much of a human as a 60 year old with Parkinson's Disease. So basically we are killing others to find cures for diseases so that we can live comfortable at the expense of other human life. Soo... our sense of being "comfortable" with our diseases is much more important then a human life? And adult stem cells are doing everything that embryonic stem cell research is doing WITHOUT destroying human life.

Bush seriously hindered any further stem cell research, even the ones which he approved of.  Not one single person has said it is all about embryo research alone. 

Angie, it was Chianti

While I applaud this much overdue action, a definitive judgement on the overall efficacy of BO's administration will be a long time in coming....

The arguments for and against using embryos for stem cell research have all been made... no one is going to change another's opinion... why is the "potential life" represented by an embryo of more value than that of adult humans?  Furthermore,  it seems that man's penchant for valuing human life over that of all the other creatures is a bit anthropocentric.... that is to say, why is the life of a human embryo of more value than that of a full grown steer? or a calf? fish? shrimp? wheat kernal?  Mankind uses all other forms of life as means to his continued existence; are they of lesser value because they are not man?  Alternatively, if all life is as valuable as all other life, how do we justify our abuse of popcorn?

dmazment says ...

Bush seriously hindered any further stem cell research, even the ones which he approved of.  Not one single person has said it is all about embryo research alone. 

Angie, it was Chianti

Thanks Deb.............lol.    I do an impersonation of Hanibal Lector when he does that scene in the movie, my husband does not understand my humor.  

dmazment says ...

Apparently I'm the only one who sees the irony here.  50 years ago, there was no CPR, if you had a heart attack, your heart stopped you died.  Organ transplants.........it's ok to take someone off life support and/or keep someone alive to harvest hearts, eyes, kidneys, livers, bones, skin,lungs, but it's not ok you use unwanted embryos to do stem cell research.  Right wingers in the beginning opposed organ transplants. All stem cell research has basically stopped because of Bush.  Medical advancements have all happened through research, much of what is accepted practice now was controversial 100 years ago.  Use of cadavers in schools was against the law for years, but now it's an accepted practice and research standard.

I see the irony, its being hypocritical, nothing has change, it is like playing this sick political game, which in turn can save a persons life. How many people has to die, before they approve embryos for stem cell research, would it take another century to get this approved.

 I am living with my own Chronic Illness, Rheumatoid Arthritis. I've been blessed by Biological Research and stem cell will do just the same. I have (unlike most) been on both sides of the fence, a patient and healthcare provider.  I am also a Christian, and the Lord gives us knowledge to use for matters such as these.  I do understand protecting a life, but what about the lives of  who are living in chronic pain.  For examples even celebrities like Michael J. Fox (Parkison's Disease), singer, Tamia (Multiple Sclerosis) and the dwendling life of Farah Fawcett and of course the millions patients we all care for daily.  I am mighty proud we have a President who understand the need for true growth in Medicine and Research.  He too, has has the experience of loss.  Many lives can be saved through stem cell research.  Disease effects everyone in one way or another, so this is needed.  

GBPrice says ...

As you probably already heard, President Obama has reversed former President Bush's stem cell policies, allowing research utilizing a greater number of stem cell lines and letting scientists apply for federal grants for their research. Did Obama make the right decision?

</blockquote

If Stem Cell research could prodice 1/10th of what the hype about it suggests private investors would be lining up to get in on the ground floor. There should be no need for government (our) money.