Stem cell research gives long-term goals for 2006 and 2008

Lately I have been getting reacquainted with the news. It’s not something I try to do — pages… Lately I have been getting reacquainted with the news. It’s not something I try to do — pages A1 through E20 of the paper every day are almost always bad news. This is news that I could live without, but my job, cutting grass, often leaves me with a large amount of leisure time. So, for 50 cents each day, I get to stay on top of fun things like politics, news and comics.

Now, even for someone like myself who is interested in politics, I haven’t been really worked up over many issues for quite some time. The old feeling that I had last year at this time, before the national election, was one of active interest and involvement. Today, with no elections looming on the horizon, politicians get to go back to being boring and esoteric once again.

But, defying all odds, the government actually took on an important issue last week: the issue of stem cell research. Interestingly, in an environment that is increasingly polarized, this issue defies party lines. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., is championing the bill in the Senate, probably because he has one of the forms of cancer researchers feel stem cells might treat.

I have followed the story for a few weeks now, and President Bush plans on vetoing the bill once it comes to his desk, because he believes that researchers would be ending human life to conduct the research. It is not known whether or not there is enough support to override a veto, the first of the Bush presidency. It does seem that a majority of the American people supports stem cell research — myself included.

This issue has got me worked up. Aside from the fact that the only embryos that would be used are ones destined for destruction anyway, I personally do not believe that an embryo is a human being. But this is another can of beans, which I do not feel like getting into right now. Many people see the subtle difference between abortion and stem cell research, but just the same, without the President’s support, I doubt the research is likely to go anywhere.

This single issue is going to be one of the major flash points in the 2006 and 2008 elections, and it is our job, now, to remember who is helping it and who is against it.

I am sure that by the time the next elections roll around, there will be half a dozen other issues in any given race that might come to the top of issues list, but this is one that we have to dig in and remember during that time.

We have to respect the religious views of Americans, but we can no longer allow such a far-right religious agenda to dominate the spotlight. Stem cell research has such tremendous potential, and the next century will feature medical breakthroughs in this field that we cannot even begin to fathom. On this one issue, people who do not hold the president’s very specific, very fringe views of embryos and destruction of life have to make a stand.

Just the same, Republicans have gone on air and spoken continually of the “culture of life” and how the use of the embryos violates that culture.

The Bush administration does not hold a monopoly on faith or on religion. I for one do not understand how the president does not see the guiding hand of God present in stem-cell research, curing now incurable diseases and improving the quality of life for those who are considered terminal today.

But, we cannot criticize the man for his course of action if he truly believes in what he is doing. What we can do is remember, in 2006 and again in 2008, that the social conservatives are not in touch with you and me, and to vote for somebody else.

E-mail Sam Morey what you think of stem cells at smorey88@hotmail.com.