Obama lifts the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research
 

He does not mention where the embryonic stem cells will come from and what will be allowed (such as from abortions, or multiple pregnancy reduction, or from unused IVF embryos, etc) so he's implementing a White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making.


Full speech http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/0...-cell-funding/


So what do you think? Where do morals of the unborn and morals to treat the living intersect?

that's always been a murky subject, going back to early policies of the Vatican concerning birth control. Do we count sperm? Do we count eggs? Or do we draw the line at zygotes? Embryos? Is the independent heartbeat the cut off point of where it's no longer and collection of cells and 'officially' becomes a human in the making?

One thing I will say is that it is painfully ironic that the people who call stem-cell research murdering the unborn are also those that have no problem carpet-bombing population centers in far-off lands. More human lives have been lost in the "War on Terror" than embryos will be used in stem cell research in a comparable amount of time.

Very good point.
But then again, embryos aren't blowing themselves up, bombing buildings, or crashing airliners.

My understanding is that they don't have to use unborn cells - other sources are available that are just as viable. Also, aren't they using cells from sources that would have been aborted anyways? It is tricky, as to where life begins and ends - where it is a mixture of chemicals and tissues vs. actually human life.

Stem cell research I am sure can use alternatives - but the answer to so many diseases including diabetes would be helped by this method

A bit of a sci-fi nerd moment here, but another concern I think should be addressed is making sure it doesn't get out of hand with manufacturing life. Given some of the very ludicrous things we have done as a species over the five millenia or so since developed agriculture and civilization, I don't think it is improbable that people will start doing grotesque things like breeding lobotomized 'donor clones' of themselves, or producing biological automatons for performing hazardous tasks.

/nerdmoment

Cord blood (blood left in the umbillical cord when a baby is born) contains stem cells and cost nothing to collect and minimal amount to preserve for research. It's a total ethical way of obtaining it as well.

Not all of the ten's of thousands of people who were killed/wounded under the blanket bombing were directly or indirectly involved in the bombing of or crashing of any planes that took lives.

I feel that science needs to advance in order for lives to be saved. How far does science need to go, probably not as far as Skynet in Terminator. I dont feel that entire populations need to be wiped out in the name of protecting us from terrorists.

controversial topic for sure. but what you say Cyndalie is very true :)