People are suffering
Our president has stepped on the hopes of families all over the country, who live day to day hoping that stem cell research will save the lives of their loved ones ("Bush's First Veto Keeps Stem-Cell Funding Curb," July 20). More accurately, once again, our illegitimate president has prostituted himself on the altar of the radical religious right, in the hopes of picking up a few points in the next set of polls. Yet again, he has proved that he is more concerned with the perceived political value of protecting an undifferentiated ball of frozen cells than he is with the possibility of saving the real lives of real living, breathing Americans.
The president tries to tell us that to sign this bill would be to "cross a moral line." However, if we have learned anything about this president, it is that he has no concept of morality. At his veto ceremony, as he ignored the tragedies that have been visited upon millions of Americans and their families, he surrounded himself with political supporters. Not surprisingly, he did not invite any of the Americans who are victimized by the agony of such conditions as Lou Gehrig's disease, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes or spinal cord injuries. Are these the actions of a moral man?
Six years ago, our president sold us the myth of "compassionate conservatism." Since then, we have learned that he is neither compassionate nor particularly conservative.
Obviously, this president has no concept of the pain that is visited upon those with a loved one who is dying -- Americans who see the hopes for survival taken away. As one who has seen the ravages of these diseases up close, I would never wish that pain on him, or on any other human being. However, with that knowledge in hand, I could never support a politician or a political party that is so insensitive to many Americans' pain.
ALBERT SCHUBERT
Penn Hills
Poor track record
Rob Rogers' July 21 editorial cartoon indicates to me a complete ignorance of the publicly known facts regarding stem cell research. Or can it be that he has a political agenda that is out of touch with realism?
First, he should note that embryonic stem cell research has failed so miserably that the smart investors (that is private investors) in the past have pulled out of it completely. Could that be why these researchers have turned now to seek taxpayers' money?
In addition the truly viable alternative, adult stem cell research, has shown great promise in that it has helped patients with at least 65 different human diseases. After 24 years of embryonic stem cell research not a single patient (zero) has been helped with a disease. Score 65 to 0. This even gets worse in that embryonic stem cells are considered to be risky even for lab animals, often forming tumors or misplaced tissue in rats and mice.
The more-promising adult stem cells are harvested without harm to a single person and are readily available from numerous human sources.
So, Mr. Rogers, my question to you is why do we want to use our tax dollars to pay to harvest embryonic stem cells for a form of research that has been abandoned by private investors, has a dubious track record, shows little or no promise for success by comparison to adult stem cells and requires what many consider to be the unethical killing of live embryos?
PAUL R. GREENAWAY
Bethel Park
First Published: July 30, 2006, 4:00 a.m.