I am surprised that I didn’t get any nasty comments in relation to my post yesterday about the Obama stance on embryonic stem cell research. This seems to be a hot button topic with some people, especially when accused of caring only about the not-quite-living, as opposed to homo sapiens already inhabiting the earth.

But maybe other issues have taken priority, some related to current economic woes and some not.

I am curious though, and I use nursing as an analogy. I have met a number of die-hard martyr type nurses who declare that they would “never go on strike.” Unions? Bleech, who needs them. But somehow, these nurses forget how to speak whenever I’ve asked them if they also are willing to turn down the benefits, pay increases, or whatever, that result from labor disputes. That since they are unwilling to go out on strike (how immoral for a saintly nurse to even think such a thing), they also would never accept such tainted money.

But not a peep from them, or a mumbled incoherent response that would put even Sarah Palin to shame.

So does the same hold true for embryonic stem cell research? Would a person who is opposed to using embryonic stem cells for scientific research, turn down a treatment derived from these stem cells? If they had fatal disease? A debilitating degenerative disease that slowly eats away the mind and body?

What about for their child? A stem cell treatment that will halt their child’s disease? One that will allow him to walk again? To see again? To live past age 2 years?

Bunny courtesy of stock.xchng