Mike educating electorate on pro-science agenda

[SherylJ]

I applaud Michael J. Fox's decision to establish an organization (Cures and Hope USA) for "educating the electorate on a pro-science agenda and helping voters make informed decisions in 2008." Education and voter turnout are the best weapons a democratic society has for eliciting positive change. I am proud to stand beside Mike every step of the way as he illuminates the high road going forward.

What we're up against is a president who ignored the wishes of two-thirds of Americans by vetoing a bill that would have eased restraints on federally funded embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). Mr. Bush argues that ESCR "crosses an ethical line" by compelling taxpayers to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos to save the lives of others.

How ethical is it to have created 40,000 excess embryos from in vitro fertilization (IVF), knowing they would eventually end up in the trash? The surest way to prevent the destruction of these embryos is not to create them in the first place, but I've yet to hear Mr. Bush oppose IVF or suggest it would be more ethical for couples to adopt children already here and waiting for families to love them.

It seems to me that Bush's stance speaks for itself and has nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with arrogance and hypocrisy.

Sheryl

[jeanb]

After the Rush Limbaugh debacle - Michael J Fox went around the U.S. promoting stem cells at different political rallies. His coming to Arizona made a difference! I believe it was due to his visit & rally that voters threw out a Rep who was anti-stem cells & voted in a pro-stem cells Rep.

I'm looking forward to learning more about his new org: Cures and Hope USA.

:D

[vlhperry]

As usual I am wondering about how selective the information is that will be fed to the electorate. I am in a difficult position to argue against stem cell research.

I have always been against abortions and invitro fertilization. Because President Bush was not the president when the Supreme Court decided in favor of Wade does not imply that he approved of the Supreme Court's decision. Nor was he in office when invtro fertilization became available. In Minnesota, a young woman and her husband recently watched their sextuplets (6 babies) die off one by one. You and I can't possibly understand the agony this young couple went through spending day after day for 2 weeks watching their hopes of having children, conceived through in vitro fertilization, as each child was claimed by death. Everyone supports everyone elses wants because they have the same wants. What about the responsibilities of allowing everyone their wants?

If you look on children as a right to have and not a gift given to teach you how to care more for someone more than you care for yourself, you support assisted conception. Because Bush cannot turn back the hands of time is no reason to assume he supports assisted conception. He cannot argue from a prolife position because even a president cannot push back the turn of the popular vote.

The woman's right's movement ushered in invitro fertilization and abortion. Because some women felt devalued by society they began to successfully force society to grant them equal status as men. Woman demanded equal wages as men received for equal jobs, welfare boomed as young women chose to make babies in an environment that encouraged love, not war. daycare became a organized form of work, sexually confused people, confused about their gender, demanded the right to have their gender surgically altered and the entire two parent family system that had worked for hundreds of generations was destroyed.

Divorce is now over 50%, couples are finding that in order to make it financially, both couples must work, stressing out both parents and forcing children to follow strict schedules filled with soccer games, baseball, gymnastics and other activities by parents who both work and want the children's schedules to be to full so they won't have to worry about what the children are doing while they make their career their primary focus in life, other children sit home alone watching television which is their parent from whom they learn their values, children join gangs because they have to fill their need to be a part of a family.

Today we are having families with record foreclosures of their mortgages, inflation of gas prices, making it harder and harder for two parents to support a family. The woman's choice to work or stay home no longer exists. Both parents must work. An education beyond high school no longer has value as so many people have one. Employers want workers with education and experience. With both parents working the workforce has swelled to the point where finding a job is harder.

Will our generation continue to demand our rights and waive the responsibilities, telling our government that it is their responsibility to see to it we are able to achieve our rights? Do we continue to impose the right to bear children or will we learn that children are a gift for us to care for and not make them bear the responsibility of making us feel whole?

The generation following us is beginning to hold on dearly to responsibility over rights. They spent their entire childhood trying to satisfy parents who have high expectations of them and do not wish to do the same to their children. Some of our children are having children to have the love they lacked from their parents. It seems sad that such high expectations should be put on a newborn baby. If the baby doesn't fill the childmother's expectations, at best he is turned over to the grandparents to raise, at worst he is thrown in a garbage dumpster or in a river to die.

I cannot support, and have never supported the miracle of childbirth being created as a gift and not as a right.

Sincerely,
Vicky Lynn

[Thelma]

Wow I assume you are not as old as I am and don't have any experience as to what it used to be like. I remember.

You would not have liked it and perhaps not survived it as many many women didn't.

Barefoot and pregnant was not as it is seen today merely a phrase to use it was reality.

Children had no rights, their mothers had no rights and women in general were owned by the men in thier lives be it husband father or even brother.

By the time the second world war was over women had earned the rights to hold down paying job and care for their children. Yet they still had to give their jobs to the men returning. Not all of these men returned to their wives and children in the condition they left. I am not talking about physical wounds but the myriad of emotional and mental problems that took the toll on marriages.

If you blame the womens movement for that then you are in for a surprise when the men from this conflict return. Some of their experiences are not condusive to a happy marriage let alone a happy life for themselves and the problems may not show for years but they will.

I like reading what you have read but hon I have lived it and no amount of reading has proven to me that the next generation is any better than the last and this is because of the useless lying wars not the fault of women having human rights.

Okay now back to MIchael J Fox. His fight is the fight for you and all suffering from Neurological diseases and others as well and not just for himself.

He is not a walkling stem cell advertisement. He is a human being who cares far beyond what is deserved by some and does his work for all in less than perfect health.

He came home here just a couple of weeks ago to hold his annual golf tournement for kids wanting to try and get into the acting business and the theatre named after him here. He looked tired and worn out but true to form put a form of a smile on his face and braved the public to raise monies that will never see a stem cell.

So then lets go back to the original post and the great work he does for us all. Sheryl and he deserve our attention.

[vlhperry]

At the end of World War II, women had proven their ability to keep the countries war production up. The women who ended up "barefoot and pregnant" made poor choices for fathers. I know because I was one of those "poor choices" as my father fought in Korea and came home changed into a pedephile. Would I have preferred my mother to conveniently have me sucked out of her womb piece by piece and never have a chance at life?

I lived through the abuse having faith that my father would not always have power over my life. Perhaps many of you came from the generation before me who fought during World War II or the Korean war. That generation lived through the depression and learned to pinch pennies. Unfortunately, they were determined to make their children's lives better and gave their children all the things they had to do without.

The main point of my post above is part of what Shari posted. She stated her opinions well, until she ended with:
"How ethical is it to have created 40,000 excess embryos from in vitro fertilization (IVF), knowing they would eventually end up in the trash? The surest way to prevent the destruction of these embryos is not to create them in the first place, but I've yet to hear Mr. Bush oppose IVF or suggest it would be more ethical for couples to adopt children already here and waiting for families to love them.

It seems to me that Bush's stance speaks for itself and has nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with arrogance and hypocrisy.
"

Her judgement of George Bush was came from guesswork and not facts. If she is able to confirm the George Bush never was against abortion or invitro fertilization and its results, then proof should be provided not just assumptions. No one can speak for me about stem cells but me when I go to the polls, including Mr. Fox. While I have great admiration for his willingness to use his fame to make a difference; I do not agree with what he considers what a positive difference is. I don't support stem cell research for my own sound reasons.

Vicky

[vlhperry]

Office of the Press Secretary
August 9, 2001

President Discusses Stem Cell Research


8:01 P.M. CDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. I appreciate you giving me a few minutes of your time tonight so I can discuss with you a complex and difficult issue, an issue that is one of the most profound of our time.

The issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos is increasingly the subject of a national debate and dinner table discussions. The issue is confronted every day in laboratories as scientists ponder the ethical ramifications of their work. It is agonized over by parents and many couples as they try to have children, or to save children already born.

The issue is debated within the church, with people of different faiths, even many of the same faith coming to different conclusions. Many people are finding that the more they know about stem cell research, the less certain they are about the right ethical and moral conclusions.

My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos. A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization, which helps so many couples conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother. Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories.

Some will not survive during long storage; others are destroyed. A number have been donated to science and used to create privately funded stem cell lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive mother and born, and are today healthy children.

Based on preliminary work that has been privately funded, scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases -- from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's, from Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they are not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique potential.

You should also know that stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos -- from adult cells, from umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born, from human placenta. And many scientists feel research on these type of stem cells is also promising. Many patients suffering from a range of diseases are already being helped with treatments developed from adult stem cells.

However, most scientists, at least today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offer the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body.

Scientists further believe that rapid progress in this research will come only with federal funds. Federal dollars help attract the best and brightest scientists. They ensure new discoveries are widely shared at the largest number of research facilities and that the research is directed toward the greatest public good.

The United States has a long and proud record of leading the world toward advances in science and medicine that improve human life. And the United States has a long and proud record of upholding the highest standards of ethics as we expand the limits of science and knowledge. Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus destroys its potential for life. Like a snowflake, each of these embryos is unique, with the unique genetic potential of an individual human being.

As I thought through this issue, I kept returning to two fundamental questions: First, are these frozen embryos human life, and therefore, something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?

I've asked those questions and others of scientists, scholars, bioethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of Congress, my Cabinet, and my friends. I have read heartfelt letters from many Americans. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, prayer and considerable reflection. And I have found widespread disagreement.

On the first issue, are these embryos human life -- well, one researcher told me he believes this five-day-old cluster of cells is not an embryo, not yet an individual, but a pre-embryo. He argued that it has the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop on its own.

An ethicist dismissed that as a callous attempt at rationalization. Make no mistake, he told me, that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives. One goes with a heavy heart if we use these, he said, because we are dealing with the seeds of the next generation.

And to the other crucial question, if these are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for good purpose -- I also found different answers. Many argue these embryos are byproducts of a process that helps create life, and we should allow couples to donate them to science so they can be used for good purpose instead of wasting their potential. Others will argue there's no such thing as excess life, and the fact that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource.

At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lies at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.

As the discoveries of modern science create tremendous hope, they also lay vast ethical mine fields. As the genius of science extends the horizons of what we can do, we increasingly confront complex questions about what we should do. We have arrived at that brave new world that seemed so distant in 1932, when Aldous Huxley wrote about human beings created in test tubes in what he called a "hatchery."

In recent weeks, we learned that scientists have created human embryos in test tubes solely to experiment on them. This is deeply troubling, and a warning sign that should prompt all of us to think through these issues very carefully.

Embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. The initial stem cell researcher was at first reluctant to begin his research, fearing it might be used for human cloning. Scientists have already cloned a sheep. Researchers are telling us the next step could be to clone human beings to create individual designer stem cells, essentially to grow another you, to be available in case you need another heart or lung or liver.

I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts, or creating life for our convenience. And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means.

My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the potential for incredible good -- to improve lives, to save life, to conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And, like all Americans, I have great hope for cures.

I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world. And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated.

Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments -- yet, the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided we must proceed with great care.

As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made.

Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.

I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord placenta, adult and animal stem cells which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year, your government will spend $250 million on this important research.

I will also name a President's council to monitor stem cell research, to recommend appropriate guidelines and regulations, and to consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications of biomedical innovation. This council will consist of leading scientists, doctors, ethicists, lawyers, theologians and others, and will be chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, a leading biomedical ethicist from the University of Chicago.

This council will keep us apprised of new developments and give our nation a forum to continue to discuss and evaluate these important issues. As we go forward, I hope we will always be guided by both intellect and heart, by both our capabilities and our conscience.

I have made this decision with great care, and I pray it is the right one.

Thank you for listening. Good night, and God bless America.

[vlhperry]

If you support in vitro fertilization so mothers can have children who are unable to naturally; how can you claim they are not life when they were not used as science intended? Are they potential babies or potential spare parts?

[Thelma]

"At the end of WW2 women had proven their abilities to keep the countries war production up ', true but there was no longer any wars to be won or lost hence no jobs beyond those few that could return to normal production as before the war and so no need for women any longer. no jobs no women needed. So the only jobs that could be had went to the returning men.

Uncle Sam had his boys home and while it was boys who went away and left their girls behind it was men who returned to the women now waiting. Nothing was as before the war.

The comment barefoot and pregnant was meant to insinuate that women were to go back as it was as their men who would take care of them were home now. Most of the women were pregnant very shortly after the men returned in the hurry to make up for those lost years. Some were happy but some had had a taste of freedom and didn't want to have more babies around.

But there was no birth control back then except for the self control of both men and women and in the state of marriage sometimes their was little choice. People being what and who they were.

Lots of these marriages failed from the strain and even those that didn't felt the strain of additional mouths to feed and house.

There was abortions back then that were horrendous in nature and the life of the woman was always in danger from them. Both men and women had to face this decision and it could not have been easy. I remember one particular woman who lhad an abortion and never got over the physical harm she later endured because of it.

No hospitalizations for these women in case someone found out. No health care insurance in that time anyways till Blue Cross came in later on.

Those were the days you were given a certain number of days to be in hospital and if longer you paid or left. But that is a different story and you don't want to get me started on that.

At the time of the Korean war things had so improved. It wasn't as long and we did not have a heavy involvement. I am sorry about what your father was like but paedophilia is not a condition brought on by war that aI know of.

Many women have in thier lives made poor choices of husbands, including me, but that is a problem for both sexes. We have in a sinse been lucky in the past as when the breakup come we had the children to keep with us and I always felt bad forthe decent men who wanted their children and perhaps could have been a much better parent than the mother was. I believe a lot of marriages stayed because of the father not wanting to give up custody of the children.

The generation who the second world war were not the generation of the depression. sure they were the children of it as I was but as a child the problems were ot mine to care about. I don't thilnk any generation gives to the children all that they missed in their lives unless those things existed in their childhood.

The last three generations have seen such progress that each one had all new inventions in the homes and playgrounds that the parents had a hard time keeing up. But pennypinchers for their kids I don't think so. Not everyone was on skid row in the depression as the home next to you was in the same boat as you were and all was in a sense abnormal yet normal if lyou know what I mean. But it made good reading and writers took many liberties of that time but it never could be told as well in a book till the movie came out. Then the true story could be embellished and all could cry.

In response to what Sheryl wrote and the remark made here of the smart way to prevent the destruction of these embryos is to not creat them in the first place. is a good one. But who is the super dooper human being that has the smarts to see into the future and predict that the partner he or she is with will not change from what they have been to acheive this union and progress or reverse into another form that can not be ther to see the child through life.

I know of no one who practices this or ever did.

I am not making any judgement on george bush as that will be done by history in it's own inimitable way it has of dethroning the mighty. Anyones choice about politics is theirs only of course but not to hear each others opinions is to walk back into the same trap or as many call it war.

George will be judged by the amount of weapons of mass destruction that are still to be found. Till they are this war is illegal.

So many young boys have died and won't be coming home as men and that is the crime.

I listen to the news regularly and hear all sides of every story. Each has a comomon element, died today, monies being spent, civilians killed, Nicky what's her name, monies stolen by Black and his cronies,will Al Gore run again,.

Garbage

Stem cells, are they the answer or not, do you know anyone here for sure, if so prove it to me and I will stop this imediately.

Hell I may be really old but while there is life in the old Babe she doesn't have to waste it chasing a dream. MJF needs a rest as well I suspect.

Many times in my long life I never took a stand as I didn't want to cause waves. Noe let the water come.

Whoops shouldn't put that in when a member has just been flooded but it sounds good so what the hey.

I have benefitted by my inaction as well as those who fought the fight for me and that is not good. Now is payback time and while you say you have sound reasons I say good on you and I wish I shared them as you seem so positive that you have the right answer. I hope they hold up to scrutiny.

I don't feel the need to fight as hard as I used to with the information coming in on all sides of the house and the world that the cure is while not here yet definitely in sight.

I don't have the time to wait and see the dance but I am sure I will hear the music.

Your a great bunch

[Thelma]

He doesn't get it and he will never get it. Iraq shows what length he will go to to prove a lie is the truth. He really doesn't know the difference.

What is the difference between an 18 or 19 year old boy and GB

One knows what he hopes he is dying for and the other knows who killed him.

What is the difference between one with an undevoloped brain and GB

Neither know it

Fingers flapping in the wind.......cigar waving....hhhmmmmhhh...I got a million of them

[olsen]

for young individuals past the age of puberty who have received chemotherapy and/or radiation for cancer, pre-harvesting eggs or saving sperm may be the only way in which they may procreate. (For any individual who has undergone these therapies, this method affords them a chance to have children.) I know of several individuals who did undergo chemotherapy/radiation who now have children because their oncologist thought to have them preserve their eggs or sperm. science gave them this chance. I think this is both a remarkable and a good thing....

thelma, love the jokes...madelyn

[paula_w]

I'm just reading and already its quite easy to predict where a thread like this could go. But I would urge anyone who clicks in here to read it all.

There are massive holes in the logic and obviously starts out on the wrong foot by refusing to understand at all. What trapped and wasted thinking.

Here's a secret....everyone knows people don't like George Bush Yep many people got that a way back...but the strategy to blame him for everything is as a child would do that is trying to get their own way. He has been hated enough. Do you have any idea how many servicemen we may have lost due to increased confidence on the other side when they look at how pathetically we are divided.

The political system is being run by immature people, who are incompetent, but most of all greedy. Government requires respect, trust, honesty, all seem like memories.

We need a new stem cell bill, that gives researchers the genetic makeup they need (at this point that is SCNT, but things change ever faster).

This is you in an egg. Adult DNA inserted into an egg that had the nucleus removed. You won't reject it, you certainly aren't going to use it in the womb. What you have in your hand, is possibly a little healing DNA egg. This is exciting because through this method, the can give cells illnesses and test chemicals on them right in the lab.

This is already for people in the future as far as I'm concerned - so we need to do it the best way possible for everyone.

Yeah I know George Bush's mother wears army boots..hahaha

paula

[Howardh]

to appoint as the head of the ethicist committee religious extremists such as Leon Kass will further hinder essential progress in ESCR. Kass has been dictatorial head of this organisation for too long,(2003) and its time the committee had a more moderate secular head with an extensive background in science and business. It is well known that individuals in support of ESCR who have made it on to the committee have resigned in numbers due to the Kass factor. The longer Kass stays at the helm of the Ethicist committee any new players who make it onto the committee and are in support of ESCR will be hard pushed to soften his hardline extremist religious view. Keep religion out of science is the battle cry from this supporter of more research into ESCR. And remove Kass and any other religious extremist quick smart. Then watch the private funds flood into the bio industry where science can get on with it and explore the probabilities in ESCR and other essential medical conditions which has 73 percent support of the people.

I am not concerned of government funding of research as the competitive hard working private sector can in my view achieve much much more in less time than government institutes most of which are managed by overpaid under achieving beaurocratic nobodies.

GO HARD.....SCIENCE

[SherylJ]

I started this thread with the intent to let people know that in my opinion, MJF was again doing a great thing for the PD community and the entire country. What could be more American than "educating the electorate on a pro-science agenda and helping voters make informed decisions in 2008."

To be clear, I am not opposed to IVF. What I object to is a double standard. The issue is not only when life begins, but when life ends. Surely, by the time an embryo is tossed out as medical waste, it's "life" is over. Why then isn't it better to use these embryos for research to save the lives of others?

Bush can indeed turn back the hands of time, as he's been attempting to do by appointing pro-life Supreme Court justices he hopes will one day reverse Roe v. Wade. If he so desires, he can try to have IVF outlawed the same way.

In case there is anyone on this planet who does not know that I strongly oppose the President's position on just about everything, let me state it now in no uncertain terms. I believe a President is accountable for everything that happens on his watch. As Harry Truman said, "The buck stops here." If Bush can't withstand the criticism, much of it now coming from his own side of the aisle, he should have chosen another career.

To make matters worse, some would have us blame the victims. They say our service people are dying not because we entered the war under false pretenses, mismanaged it, and have no exit strategy but because of the lack of support for the war among the majority of Americans. If some want to call this "trapped and wasted thinking," rather than argue the issue on its merits, so be it.

Exactly who are the "immature,,, incompetent... greedy" people running the political" system? The government does not "require respect and trust" -- it must earn this with honest, moral, and just conduct... none of which this administration has displayed.

Sheryl

[paula_w]

The facts are, minus an opinion, that George Bush said from the beginning that he would veto this bill, never wavered, and since it came to his desk again, he vetoed it again. In this country everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They did not get the votes to override the veto.

Who is to blame for not having the votes to override the veto?

Here are facts with opinion. There are too many incompetent, immature, greedy, media hounds in congress. They are incompetent (IMO) because they are unable to negotiate, do not know their facts, and are too divided. We need people who know how to do more that call names and accuse and blame.

Obviously, people with better and different skills are needed in congress.

paula

[SherylJ]

On this we agree... Congress knew Bush was going to veto the bill again and they failed to muster enough votes for an override. This is where I think Mike's new org will be invaluable. He will be sure the electorate knows where their Congress people stand on this and other cutting edge medical and scientific research and what it may mean to them, their children, and their grandchildren.

This brings to mind the quotation that "People get the kind of government they deserve." In this case, it is unfortunate for those of us who don't deserve it, but happen to live among those who voted for the current administration not once, but twice, and do deserve it in spades.

Republicans historically have stood for less government interference in business. I just wish they would stay out of my bedroom and hospital room as well.

Sheryl

[vlhperry]

May 15, 2007
Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
Both ratings are slightly lower than 2007 averages

by Joseph Carroll

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds continued low levels of public support for both Congress and President George W. Bush. Twenty-nine percent of Americans approve of Congress, down slightly from last month's reading (33%) and this year's high point of 37%, while Bush's approval rating is holding steady at 33%. Both the ratings of Congress and the president are slightly lower than their respective 2007 averages. Approval ratings of Congress are higher among Democrats than Republicans, while Bush's ratings are much higher among Republicans.

Congressional Job Approval

According to the May 10-13, 2007, Gallup Poll, 29% of Americans approve and 64% disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job. Congressional approval is down 4 percentage points since last month, and is 3 points lower than the 32% average measured during the first five months of the year. The high point for the congressional approval rating so far this year was the 37% approval measured in February. Although ratings are quite low, Americans have been more positive in their assessments of Congress this year than last year, when an average of just 25% approved of Congress.



Even though Democrats now control both houses of Congress, the poll shows that only 37% of Democrats approve of the job Congress is doing right now. These marks are, however, significantly better than those given to Congress by independents (24%) and Republicans (25%). Democrats have been more likely than Republicans to approve of Congress this year, whereas Republicans expressed a higher level of approval prior to the change of power experienced after the midterm congressional elections in November 2006.

So far this year, Republicans' approval of Congress has gradually declined, from a high of 37% in mid-January to 25% in the latest poll. By comparison, ratings among Democrats have shown more fluctuation, ranging between 33% and 44% since January, and are down 6 points this month since early April. More generally, Democrats' ratings of the job the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing are down from a higher point of 44% in February, which is just after the control of Congress switched from the Republicans to the Democrats.



Presidential Job Approval

There has been little meaningful change in the public's rating of the president in quite some time. Thirty-three percent of Americans now approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president, while 62% disapprove. Bush's approval ratings have averaged 35% in 2007, and have fallen within a narrow range between 32% and 38%. Bush's ratings were slightly higher last year, averaging 38%. Bush has not received an approval rating above 40% in any Gallup polling since September 2006.



Republicans continue to be much more likely than independents or Democrats to support the president. Seventy-three percent of Republicans approve of Bush, substantially higher than the 27% approval among independents and the 9% approval among Democrats. Although the three party groups' ratings of Bush's job approval have been quite stable in recent months, since last May presidential approval ratings have shown somewhat more fluctuation among Republicans (ranging between 68% and 86%) than among independents (23% to 36%) or Democrats (4% to 15%).



Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,003 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 10-13, 2007. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

From website of the Gallup Poll.

My son is a 1st Luitenant in the army and has served in Iraq. He has assured me that the American press is definitely trying to push a negative agenda. He told me the people in Iraq are like children, willing to do whatever they are told because of the impact of terrorism in their lives.

Perhaps you are only concerned for Americans. George Bush has a world wide view and more information. He is the most powerful man in the world at this time and his concern is not just for Americans to have freedom but for other nations as well. The people of Iraq deserve a chance to begin to hope for freedom. It will take time for the centuries of muslim indoctrination to wipe away the fear that they must rely on a tyrannical God who insists they must destroy all other faiths, and agnostics. This is what happened on 9/11, a lesson none of us should ever forget. Freedom is not a right, but a quality of life to be defended from all attacks. If you wish to continue to live with Jewish neighbors, Methodist neighbors, Catholic neighbors then you must not assume all people have freedom. Until all the world sees freedom as a necessary quality of life, wars will have to be fought.

God permits wars so we can help other populations to gain the right to help others. In fact God demands that we destroy evil no matter what the cost.
This is a religeous war. It also is a war meant to restore rights to an oppressed people. Americans have so much, but they also have a bit too much pride. Many would prefer to be isolationist. We waited until the last minute to enter World War II to assist in crushing Adolf Hitler's attempt to conquer Europe. The last time a president and the trust in the government was when John F. Kennedy was president. Since that time the confidence level in our government has dropped dramatically. John Kennedy was a marvelous orator and people believed him when he said, "Ask not what your country can do for you , but what you can do for your country." He proved that he was willing to step up to his challenge when he was serving on PT109.Patrick Henry, in the Revolutionary war cried, "Give me Liberty or Give me death!"

Vicky

[SherylJ]

We have digressed so far from the issue of ESCR that this debate doesn't even belong here. I'm only continuing it because certain things have been said that I can't let go unanswered.

Personally, I do not see George Bush as the most powerful man in the world, nor the U.S. as a superpower. If we were, nations like North Korea and Iran wouldn't be thumbing their noses at us and testing nuclear weapons. What worked when we had "mutually assured destruction," does not work in today's new reality. Teenage suicide bombers who want to die, strike fear worldwide and continually raise the stakes. How long will it be before one of them detonates a dirty bomb in some Europen or American city? The rules of engagement wil be forever changed, making everyone a potential superpower.

"God permits wars so we can help other populations to gain the right to help others. In fact God demands that we destroy evil no matter what the cost." I guess this is your way of justifying the huge loss of life among innocent civilians... especially women and children. Is this also why God permits genocide and famine? Whether you like it or not, what is considered evil is not universally agreed upon behaviodependent on a person's perspective

Seeing as how strongly you support the war, I wonder how many of your children or grandchildren are serving in Iraq to "restore rights to an oppressed people." In my opinion, anyone who is not willing to put their life or those of close relatives in harm's way have no right to send mine or anyone else's.

Sheryl

[AnnT2]

Thelma, that was really, really good! For the first time I felt I knew you. I could almost hear you saying your words.

Vlhperry, you are very bright and you have done a lot of thinking to get to your conclusions and they seem cast in concrete. You are pretty logical, but when you base your logic on a premise that does not make sense, no matter how logical you are you can come to a false conclusion. I think you have had a lot of tough - no more than tough - intractable pain happen to you. I think you would be surprised if you knew how much pain other, less verbal people on this forum have. Still, I can see why you are so strong. You have to be. By the way, some premises I think are not accurate: People believe they have the right to have a child. Actually, I think most people want a child. Want is the condition rather than a defacto right. Also, the poster did not say George believed in abortion or in vitro, I think, but rather that George never says anything about either.

Now for those who feel in vitro is wrong, I have a question. Doesn't all life come from God? Doesn't God have a purpose for all people he puts on earth? Then, isn't he an instrument in the conception resulting from in vitro? Doesn't he have a purpose for these humans given life thus?

Paula, I agree with you. Tired of bashing George. Irrelevant at this point. Who cares?

I am thinking we all should be happy that maybe, just maybe our lot in life is about to change for the better.

By the way, I think if there is a God, he likes us talking about these items because he wants us to gain the truth. It's a process.

Ann

[vlhperry]

We have digressed so far from the issue of ESCR that this debate doesn't even belong here. I'm only continuing it because certain things have been said that I can't let go unanswered.

Personally, I do not see George Bush as the most powerful man in the world, nor the U.S. as a superpower. If we were, nations like North Korea and Iran wouldn't be thumbing their noses at us and testing nuclear weapons. What worked when we had "mutually assured destruction," does not work in today's new reality. Teenage suicide bombers who want to die, strike fear worldwide and continually raise the stakes. How long will it be before one of them detonates a dirty bomb in some Europen or American city? The rules of engagement wil be forever changed, making everyone a potential superpower.

"God permits wars so we can help other populations to gain the right to help others. In fact God demands that we destroy evil no matter what the cost." I guess this is your way of justifying the huge loss of life among innocent civilians... especially women and children. Is this also why God permits genocide and famine? Whether you like it or not, what is considered evil is not universally agreed upon behaviodependent on a person's perspective

Seeing as how strongly you support the war, I wonder how many of your children or grandchildren are serving in Iraq to "restore rights to an oppressed people." In my opinion, anyone who is not willing to put their life or those of close relatives in harm's way have no right to send mine or anyone else's.Sheryl

Are you smarter than a fifth grader? LOL Direct quote from my prior post:
My son is a 1st Luitenant in the army and has served in Iraq. He has assured me that the American press is definitely trying to push a negative agenda. He told me the people in Iraq are like children, willing to do whatever they are told.

A different poster writes:

You are pretty logical, but when you base your logic on a premise that does not make sense, no matter how logical you are you can come to a false conclusion. I think you have had a lot of tough - no more than tough - intractable pain happen to you. I think you would be surprised if you knew how much pain other, less verbal people on this forum have. Still, I can see why you are so strong. You have to be. By the way, some premises I think are not accurate: People believe they have the right to have a child. Actually, I think most people want a child. Want is the condition rather than a defacto right. Also, the poster did not say George believed in abortion or in vitro, I think, but rather that George never says anything about either.

Does anyone read the posts in their entirety, or do they skim through them believing they already know the person's meaning? The poster referred to said she had not heard President Bush discuss abortion or invitro fertilization. I believe she has now. That is if she and you took the time to read the statement President Bush released to the American people.
President Bush states:

"As I thought through this issue, I kept returning to two fundamental questions: First, are these frozen embryos human life, and therefore, something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?

I've asked those questions and others of scientists, scholars, bioethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of Congress, my Cabinet, and my friends. I have read heartfelt letters from many Americans. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, prayer and considerable reflection. And I have found widespread disagreement.

On the first issue, are these embryos human life -- well, one researcher told me he believes this five-day-old cluster of cells is not an embryo, not yet an individual, but a pre-embryo. He argued that it has the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop on its own.

An ethicist dismissed that as a callous attempt at rationalization. Make no mistake, he told me, that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives. One goes with a heavy heart if we use these, he said, because we are dealing with the seeds of the next generation.

And to the other crucial question, if these are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for good purpose -- I also found different answers. Many argue these embryos are byproducts of a process that helps create life, and we should allow couples to donate them to science so they can be used for good purpose instead of wasting their potential. Others will argue there's no such thing as excess life, and the fact that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource.

At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lies at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.

As the discoveries of modern science create tremendous hope, they also lay vast ethical mine fields. As the genius of science extends the horizons of what we can do, we increasingly confront complex questions about what we should do. We have arrived at that brave new world that seemed so distant in 1932, when Aldous Huxley wrote about human beings created in test tubes in what he called a "hatchery."

In recent weeks, we learned that scientists have created human embryos in test tubes solely to experiment on them. This is deeply troubling, and a warning sign that should prompt all of us to think through these issues very carefully.

Embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. The initial stem cell researcher was at first reluctant to begin his research, fearing it might be used for human cloning. Scientists have already cloned a sheep. Researchers are telling us the next step could be to clone human beings to create individual designer stem cells, essentially to grow another you, to be available in case you need another heart or lung or liver.

I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts, or creating life for our convenience. And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means."

I also do not agree that therapeutic cloning is not destroying human life. The egg is life. If, after inserting genetic material from the person to receive stem cells, the egg begins subdividing into cells. This is life. When the stem cells are harvested while the egg is still subdividing or alive, that life is destroyed.

If too many embryos are in freezers around the country, the embryos should be offered to couples who have no ability to create because the man is sterile or the woman is unable to produce viable eggs. Doctors should not create life unless they are able to permit it the same future that embryos produced in the natural way; between a man and woman.

As to getting off topic,embryonic stem cell research and the president's stance against it, each of my posts addresses exactly the topic started in this thread. The thread began with praise for Michael J. Fox and his new efforts to put forward a more scientific approach to research and also stated several degrading remarks toward the president's stand against embryonic stem cell research as well as demeaning our presidents character without facts to back them up. You may not agree with him, but you have no right to demean his character because it doesn't agree with his conclusions.

Vicky

[AnnT2]

Vicky -
What? The embryos should be offered to couples after the doctor decides that the prospective couple will be able to permit the surplus embryo the same future as an embryo produced in a natural way? Babies produced naturally are not guaranteed any special future, and the doctor has neither the right nor the ability to make that decision. By the way, doctors sometimes think they are almighty but they do not create life.

You are right. I do skim. When I saw that lengthy quote from Bush, I deliberately skipped over it. It does not matter to me what he says. I just hope he believes what he says and is not just pleasing a voters' bloc. All I said was that another poster never knew of Bush speaking about IVF. Her words were "I never heard Bush......." About skimming, I do that a lot if there is too much written. I like to get to the point.


Ann

[Chemar]

Just a gentle request for the discussion to remain as on topic as possible and respectful of each other's right to have differing opinions please.

I am reading a valid original discussion that is beginning to move a bit too far off the topic that the original poster intended for this thread to be about.

Disagreeing on any subject is not the problem. It is how that disagreement is worded that can sometimes be.


I am not posting this to anyone in particular, so please dont feel so. I am just reminding that as we feel strongly about something, so our words can sometimes become stronger when posting to those who disagree with our point of view.

something we all need to think about before we hit that 'submit' button

thanks
Cheri

[SherylJ]

Vicky, I will admit to skimming your very long post, which I thought said you knew someone who was a second Lt in Iraq... I missed that the person was your son. That said, nothing changed because I skimmed, and no one died

The leftover embryos suspended in cryogenic limbo can be put up for adoption, but only if this is what the mother wants. It is not her doctor's decison to make.

You said, "The thread began with "degrading remarks toward the president's stand against embryonic stem cell research as well as demeaning our presidents character without facts to back them up. You may not agree with him, but you have no right to demean his character because it doesn't agree with his conclusions."

As indignant as you are about my comments regarding our most public figure, you have no compncction about insulting me and questioning my intelligence because I skimmed your post. Your exact words were,
"Are you smarter than a fifth grader? LOL"

So, now we have come full circle in our discussion,
And while we're talking of double standards, I find it interesting that we're erecting hundreds of miles of fence to keep out migrant fruit pickers while enacting policies that drive our top scienists overseas to pursue ESCR.

Sheryl


several degrading remarks toward the president's stand against embryonic stem cell research as well as demeaning our presidents character without facts to back them up. You may not agree with him, but you have no right to demean his character because it doesn't agree with his conclusions.

Vicky

[jeanb]

I am THRILLED that M J Fox is starting a new organization named "Cures and Hope USA." Cures and Hope USA, will be dedicated to educating the electorate on a pro-science agenda and helping voters make informed decisions in 2008.

This is important, and thanks to Mr. Fox for taking this on. People with listen to him, and people will learn the facts about Stem Cells and other science important to all PWP.
:o

[vlhperry]

LOL means "Lots of laughter" as so many people have been on the show: rocket scientists, pastors, teachers, yet no one has managed to grab the prize of winning $1.000,00.00 million American dollars. I am sorry the show is quite popular in the states and I assumed you were familiar with it. My sincere apologies, I was trying to lighten your oversight with humor.

Now what was the topic? ESCR, the war in Iraq, The respect for our president, the president's immigration policy or maybe world policy? Maybe you could remind me as you seem to change tthe topic with every post.

I have stuck to the topic you placed in your first post. You keep changing the topic with each post because you find my arguments difficult to defend in a forthright, logical, manner.

Vicky

[Chemar]

I have made some needed edits and I hope this is the last time I will have to intervene on this thread.

I am asking one more time please:

1. If a post is being made it MUST be within the guidelines.

2. Personal disputes are to be dealt with off the boards.

3. Disagreeing on a TOPIC is fine.
Becoming personally negative toward other members is not. That is called flaming and it is prohibited here.

If this thread is to remain open, those three points will need to be taken seriously please.
I really am loathe to ever moderate threads here as I have great respect for all of you and the discussions you have. But the guidelines simply have to be followed, specifically those 3 points I have made above.

thanks for co-operating
Cheri

[jeanb]

People on this board are well informed about science and how it relates to incurable diseases like PD. I don't believe that's true of most Americans. Most people don't know the difference between adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells or SCNT ...

A couple of months ago I spoke to a disability advocacy group in Arizona about stem cells. I gave an overview of them and the science (very general). They were STUNNED to learn about the 400,000 excess embryos that are slated for destuction. They asked why were so many extra created? And then they asked why the parents could not donate them to science just as many of us are signed up to be organ donors at the end our life?

My hope is that Cures and Hope USA will bring knowledge to people across the nation, so they can make educated decisions about science and how it will affect them, their neighbors, and people everywhere.

[olsen]

(even though this is in another thread, thought it was applicable to this thread. reason for double posting)

replacement embryonic stem cells are being studied as a drug delivery system in ALS. Instead of neurons being made from the stem cells, these cells are turned into specialized glial cells that are transplanted around the functioning motor neurons in patients with ALS. trophic factors such as GDNF are excreted by these newly manufactured cells, improving support to the surviving neurons. These cells do not need to make neuronal connection--they just release their factors into the surrounding environment, thus this process is thought to be more easily achieveable than the use of manufactured neurons themselves.
seems same process could be utilized to transplant glial cells around dopamine producing structures for PD--another way to increase neurotrophic factors

[Howardh]

consensus among the troups on this thread, congressional decision makers on capitol hill, and more importantly the U.S. populace, (73%) is the overwhelming swing for research using Embryonic stem cells.

The intelectual hogwash written for President Bush by his overpaid under-achieving full time script writers does not cut it among reasoned folk. Bush has the veto power and we must respect that. He needed that to overturn absolutely overwhelming public and congressional support for ESCR.

This new guy Thompson standing for president for the Republicans looks like the real deal. A no nonsence pro choice action man. That should temper the authoritarian dictatorial hold Leon Cass has over the Ethics committee should Thompson win the presidentsy. And maybe just maybe we can free up some scientists championing at the bit to get pumping with research on Embryonic stem cells and bring us the neccessary medical breakthroughs we know are but a nano second away from discovery.

GO HARD SCIENCE

[paula_w]

Howard and all,

As I last saw it, Fred Thompson, the actor and not stem cell flip flopper Tommy Thompson (forgot his title but I will edit in later). ...but Fred, the actor on weekly I'll guess you meant.

At this point, the non-candidate (?) is a self-described "pro-life guy" and taking his time because as an actor, there will be a huge attraction to him. Congress will be a bit starry-eyed and that makes people weird - I think it must mess with a brain wave or something.

He is well liked.

Any opinions on Rudy Guliani (is that spelled right?)

Although not particularly bonded to him at the moment, I find myself agreeing with Rudy the most. ??

paula

[Howardh]

here in the South Pacific we have Fox News, CNN, BBC, Sky News, etc, 24/7 so we are up to speed with all the latest from the U.S. If you guys can get Paris Hilton off your front pages and focuss more on what really matters, we ould know a whole lot more about Thompson.

Gullianni had a history of force, intimidation, and a dictatorial rule of law while he was Mayor of New York. Crime was reduced in New York big time on his watch. But at what cost?

He is a supporter of ESCR but there are better candidates after the top job--
Thompson springs to mind--

GO HARD....SCIENCE

[paula_w]

yes, my email to the cable news station re Paris Hilton was just one question:

"Have you all lost your minds?"

paula

[Thelma]

I find it very sad that Paris Hilton is being used by the media to sell it's wares. This little skinny 'poor' child needs all the care and concern we can muster to help her through this hard period of her life.

Her story of being in jail and having no television or radio is heartbreaking and of interest to us all or should be.

It is not every day you see grown men and women sitting and talking to a 26 year old woman as if she is a baby.

So why do you think we do it? The answer to that intrigues me. Would we have a picture all over the tabloids and the television if this was a boy child.

Would the boy have been sent to jail and just forgotten about?

Was it her money or was it her sex? Was it the boys fault ot his sex?

Or is it the fact of old men who are taking young girls to marry and father children who must look at them and see grampas face eventually.

I don't know about anyone here as to their opinion but it is not a pretty picture to me.

Or is it a statement to our useage of young people for titillation and old age sport.

There is no one to write to to complain that will ever be read as it permeates our soceity and all the while we talk about it happening overseas.

So maybe these old men need these wars to thin out the potential competition.

Libby's friend got him off eh.........I expected that.......but that's another rant for another day

[SherylJ]

Thelma, I too "find it very sad that Paris Hilton is being used by the media to sell it's wares." What's even sadder is that they are doing it because that's what the majority of their viewers want to see. Whether you are talking about Fox or CNN, the media is big business with stockholders to answer to, as is the case with the big pharmas. They don't do anything not calculated to increase the bottom line. Nothing will change until society's values change, and that isn't happening any time soon.

Sheryl