Decius wrote:
] This arguement is a non-starter. In theory, wars aren't a
] choice. The necessity of the Iraq war is highly questionable,
] but conservatives believe it was nessecary. You can choose not
] to do stem cell research.

[ It may be a non-starter as far as a convincing argument, but then, so is pretty much any line of reasoning when people are as entrenched in their thinking as most people seem to be.

From a certain point of view, funding stem cell research isn't any more difficult a choice than "Should I educate my children?" or "Is cancer bad?" Or "Should we invade Iraq?" to a stauch bush supporter. Of course.

Stem cell research offers a lot of promise for curing or treating a lot of completely awful diseases... one of the best we might have access to. I can completely understand taking the position that it's a necessary activity... that to not investigate the possibilities is more immoral than the act itself.

If you meant only to illustrate that the hardliners on the "religious" right won't buy it, then you're totally right, but they're not addressing the issue from the same set of premises, even if you grant that they're using logic at all. To say that reason, as laid out by a liberal, will not be a convincing to a conservative... that's a truism. We don't think the same way. -k]

RE: CNN.com - House passes embryonic stem cell bill - May 24, 2005