Kaptur and Gillmor both vote no on HB3

I'm so glad that the two of them come down on the side of the bible, as opposed to saving lives through cutting edge scientific research.

I wouldn't begin singing hosannahs just yet. I don't know Mr. Gilmor or Ms. Kaptur personally, nor have I observed either one well enough to know their religious persuasions.

Before you or anyone else heralds restrictions on stem cell research as the work of the Lord, try consulting a few quadriplegic people, a sampling of paraplegics and the mothers whose children could have been saved by the results of stem cell research. You may gain some humanitarian insight into the lives of people who will benefit most from cutting edge scientific research.

If you can

Madjack, I think fish4 is for it just as your are. I sensed some sarcasm in that statement you quoted :). Ditto though, I'm in favor of "unrestricted, lavishly funded stem cell research." I have a huge issue/pet peeve when the government tries to legislate or regulate for morality purposes.

I can see why perhaps you thought otherwise, MAD, but I detected as well sarcasm with fish4 post.

An interesting perspective on the topic from a libertarian think-tank:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6795

And I'm really and truly happy about this. This is one of the matters that has caused such a divide among the citizens of the U.S.

On one hand, I want to see the advancements made with stem cell research. I don't know anybody who would say no, they don't want to see it done.

On the other, my desire to protect human life is so strong. The idea that some in the business world would have a window of opportunity to make fetal cells a for-profit venture is the type of thing that nightmares are made out of.

Amniotic fluid is thrown away as waste now. That should change quickly and the researchers can have the cells to work with.

I want this bill to pass and I hoped it would garner enough votes (290) to be able to override a presidential veto. The senate has the votes to override.
I have a family memeber who could benefit from any form of medical breakthrough. Even if not in her lifetime, I would love to see help for people in the future.
I am disappointed that Marcy went against the democratic party voting against this worthy issue. Obviously she doesn't want to go against the catholic democrat voters who keep her in office. For me, living in Wood county, Gillmor is a lost cause.

An interesting perspective on the topic from a libertarian think-tank:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6795

Good article Maggie. For the most part, I agree with the article, however I can't ignore the technology and advancements that government funding has achieved. Who funded putting a man on the moon? Who funded the beginning of the internet, the Human Genome Project, etc.

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=sr-108-2-2

T++, you raise an interesting point. I think that some would say that private industry would fill the gap - kind of like we're seeing in the private space vehicles being developed and the 'prize' that was offered (http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/xprize_full_coverage.html).

This is such a difficult subject for many...

Will private industry fill the gap?. I don't think that government funding should be an open ended act. The internet was initially funded by the government, then later truly developed by the private sector. Space exploration has been a government funded project for decades, while now private enterprise is experimenting with the commercialization of space travel.

Look how long it took for the private sector to form such a foundation to try and commercialize space travel. Were

I see it more as the private sector spends more of its' time jumping on the bandwagon rather than being the most innovative. Surely there are innovative companies out there pushing the boundaries and advancing technologies, but they are few are far between -- at least when it comes to major milestones or advancements.

Great points again Maggie :).

I can definitely see where the "free-market proponents" might argue on your first point, why pay the costs when someone does it for you?

However, I hardly think that without government funding for the past 100 years, we would be far less advanced than we are now. Unfortunately, I don't have any data that could back that up.

It's a personal belief I guess. Government funding goes toward giving a lift toward a greater good. A true free market could effectively eliminate governments, couldn't you agree?

Why not privatize all road building? Privatize the military -- think how much money taxpayers would save if we wouldn't have to pay for wars or the military. Why not privatize police -- leave it to security companies. Why not privatize everything?

Thats the problem that lies with me. It's the drawing of the line of free market and government serving its' people.

agreed on much of that...I guess your last point is where I go to the Constitution...but then, I'm a limited government sort of person. If the Constitution put the authority there (like for national defense) then government gets to do it...

But, I don't think we'd have the interstate highway system we have now if it hadn't been for the coordination through the federal government.