Comments on: Stem cells….

By: John Kelsey

John Kelsey — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:31:42 +0000

It’s helpful to define the terms. The extremists also won the slavery and divine-right-of-kings debate, at least in the US. If there’s a meaning to “extremist” other than “far from the center at the time,” I don’t know what it is.

–John

By: Jason Malloy

Jason Malloy — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 22:32:31 +0000

"Extremists" did not win the Pro-choice debate. I know they didn't because I am one of those "extremists".

By: Jason Malloy

Jason Malloy — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 22:28:37 +0000

. . . and that’s why I watched a phone interview with Nancy Reagan instead of Sailer review a buddy movie.

By: razib

razib — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:08:05 +0000

well, i suspect something happened that made frist not want to run for president, so now he has a free hand.

By: scottm

scottm — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 04:03:29 +0000

I'm not at all suprised. This mirrors a lot of what I have been reading in the abortion debate. Specifically: the pro-lifers have won the major battle on stem cells just like the pro-choicers have won the major battle on abortion; and because the extremists have won on each of these debates, the oppositions' "nibbling around the edges" of the victory seems reasonable to the majority of Americans. Pro-lifers' placing barrier such as parental consent and banning partial-birth abortion get support from the populace, just like pro-stem cell research advocates trying to tug more money or more lines do.

I suspect that if a pro-choice Dem had won in 2000 and given free reign to stem cell research, we would see "nibbling" by the right in aspects of restricting the origin of certain lines supported by the American people.

The beauty of American politics is that the extremists win phyrric victories and are pulled, slowly, to the center.

Also, I (obviously) support (whatever that means) stem cell research, and was dissapointed with Bush's political decision.