Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., has died at age 77.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Stem cell objections from the president’s council
Ten members (more than half) of President Obama’s bioethics council have issued a statement voicing their concerns about his recent executive order regarding embryonic stem cell research.
They write:
The policy announced by President Bush on August 9, 2001, did not ban federal funding of embryonic stem cell research; rather, for the first time, it provided and endorsed such funding (as long as the stem cell lines had been derived prior to that date). The aim of this policy was not to shackle scientific research but to find a way to reconcile the need for research with the moral concerns people have.
They mention pluripotent cells – derived from adults – as an alternative to the moral quandry of using embryos for research. And they explain that while the president has banned human cloning, the new research will require the creation or cloning of embryos, which in essence would create a class of embryos that must be destroyed in order to not be implanted as human clones.
Their statement, however, comes nearly three weeks after the president’s executive order lifting the ban on embryonic stem cell research. If they objected, why did it take so long to make that public?
back to top19 Comments to “Stem cell objections from the president’s council”
Isn’t it refreshing that President Obama has not surrounded himself with “Yes Men” like our last president did?
Report comment to moderator
RPN – I appreciated your “tongue-in-cheek” sarcasm. Surely one lone challenge doesn’t undue the tsunamai of rank-in-file support our current President has at his back. Lest you forgot, the news was constantly filed with nay-sayers in and around the former administration.
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps, RPN, the President has adopted an unsupportable position.
Report comment to moderator
I should have added that the news reported the nay-sayers, whether a singular voice or a contingent. The news made sure any dissent to Pres. Bush was heard.
Report comment to moderator
At first look, I was willing to bet this is just a head fake. But, 10 of the 18 members is significant and they do say Obama misstated the intention of the ban he overturned. Perhaps they do have some ethics at odds—not surprisingly—with the president’s.
Report comment to moderator
David-
Who in the Bush Administration opposed the Iraq war at the time?
Report comment to moderator
If they objected, why did it take so long to make that public?
They wanted to make sure that they wouldn’t be rounded up and put in the new concentration camps the 3 stooges are building?
You have to admire their courage knowing the left wing smear machine will be all over them like white on rice and the whack jobs will be picketing them at home and at work looking to harm them physically if no sane person is watching out for them. We know that no dissension is allowed against Obama or his Marxist agenda – as the list of those attacked visciously keeps on growing attests.
They say they “Isn’t it refreshing that President Obama has not surrounded himself with “Yes Men” like our last president did?”
But I would caution all to ignore their obvious lies and watch what they do instead.
Report comment to moderator
This seems like a very odd joke. The President’s council on Bioethics is only Obama’s council because he is the President. It was created an staffed by Bush to give legitimacy to his attempt to gut science and run national research on ideology. Bush signed an executive order in 2007 extending the council till Sept 30, 2009.
The objectors in question are YES men, they are just Bush’s YES men.
Embedded Bush hold overs criticizing Obama is not news. Come Sept 30th their won’t be a “President’s Council on Bioethics” because Obama won’t need a special group of hacks collecting government per diems to speak up for his policies.
Report comment to moderator
If they objected, why did it take so long to make that public?
Perhaps because their “objections” seem have more to do with the objections of other people rather than their own.
Only one member of the council, Edmund D. Pellegrino, declared a personal objection. He said, “Ethically, I cannot support any policy permitting deliberate production and/or destruction of a human fetus or embryo for any purpose, scientific or therapeutic.”
The other dissenters go so far as lamenting the fact that Obama’s policy will lose some of the support that Bush’s policy had — but hardly any farther than that. Welcome to the post 11/2 world. Obama campaigned for his policy, Evangelicals called him a liar and a murderer, and he won. That being the case, dissenters may have an argument with the American people, their friends and neighbors, but not with the President, who is merely an agent of the public’s will. Remember that in America, God has appointed our fellow voters to rule over us.
Report comment to moderator
Mynock: While I am certainly not loath to jump on Bush, his bioethics panel was (and is) a pretty sharp bunch of eggheads. They have issued several reports highlighting some of the more serious issues arising out of bio-technology and generally have advocated restraint and reason in development and use of genetic technology.
I disagree with the majority of the panel on stem cell research, but I certainly wouldn’t dismiss the panels’ intellectual firepower and actual reports to date.
Report comment to moderator
At least our current President allows dissent, unlike his predecessor. I cannot think of a single instance where any one person, much less 10, issued a statement disagreeing with President Bush. They would have been shipped off to one of the C.I.A.’s “black sites” if they had.
Report comment to moderator
#11 Anlir,
All you had to do is look here when Bush was trying to pass Drugs for Granny. They were millions on the right who were against him doing so and they had no prroblem saying so. But this wasn’t the only issue we had with Bush either. Put on your honesty hat for one moment. Can you name any other issues where at least 10 people disagreed with Bush? Do you need help in remembering? How about the full page adds taken out where there were many more than 10 signatures against Bush’s ideas all conservatives?
Caught you lying again didn’t I? Go ahead and admit it and set yourself free?
Report comment to moderator
Anlir’s ridiculous, histrionic and irrelevant projecting aside, this is the same Obama who recently defended his ESC policy on the basis of its potential to cure Alzheimer’s disease, despite the lack of of any reputable scientific support toward this end. Only the most demagogic know-nothings cheer this sort of snakeoilsmanship. And they have the gall to call Bush the “antiscience” president.
Good grief. At least show some self respect. And take time to read the council on bioethics reports before deeming Obama’s scientifically illiterate posing something superior to the opinions of the folks Bush put on the council. He doesn’t need a “group of hacks”? Apparently, what he doesn’t feel a need for is a rudimentary understanding of the science behind the issues he postures about. Again, antiscience, indeed!
Report comment to moderator
It’s all political. And supporting the UN program which works with the Chinese to force abortions and sterilizations — the left is responsible for that and has that grief on its collective head.
Report comment to moderator
Of course we aren’t talking about the man on the street here. No doubt, there were 10’s of millions of “man on the street” Americans who publicly opposed President Bush. We’re talking about the members of the President’s Ethics Council.
As for Llama’s accusation that I’m lying, give me a break. He accuses everyone who disagrees with him of lying. He’s so Christ-like when he does that.
Report comment to moderator
Amlir,
Hers is your entire comment in #11
At least our current President allows dissent, unlike his predecessor. I cannot think of a single instance where any one person, much less 10, issued a statement disagreeing with President Bush. They would have been shipped off to one of the C.I.A.’s “black sites” if they had.
No0 where do you mention the ‘We’re talking about the members of the President’s Ethics Council.’
See – you lied and then lied about lying. We need to come up with a word to describe that lefty syndrome. Insane seenms to work for you again and is what I would call it, Don’t worry Anlir, you can try to change the meaning of that word too but only crazy people would do that
What a peach.
Report comment to moderator
Dangerous Behaviors in Llamas by Alvin Bean
There has been much said, done and written about the terror of “Berserk Male Syndrome” or “Aberrant Behavior Syndrome” in llama circles….learn more about dangerous Llamas at the link.
Report comment to moderator
Even a half-whit knows that I was referring to people within the Bush circle in #11, not the average man on the street.
Report comment to moderator
If Obama’s intentions were to unshackle science from the sway of politics, why did his executive order also revokes Bush’s Executive Order 13435, which specifically advocated support for HHS/NIH research involving induced pluripotent stem cells?
In a moment of unintentional transparency, Obama’s political vindictiveness shines through and in the glare science is disregarded. What’s his motive? Could it be a brazen intent to suppress the potential of IPSC to please the interests of those who put him in office by sticking it to the Bushies? Pro-science president, indeed. High level hack is more like it. Who cares how long it took the bioethics counsel to object? At least there are some in DC who aren’t still so deliriously schnookered by this poser that they can’t stand up straight.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!