Bush vetoes stem cell research bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tyme

Administrator
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/19/060719183426.77ijlglm.html

"We must also remember that embryonic stem cells come from human embryos that are destroyed for their cells. Each of these human embryos is a unique human life with inherent dignity and matchless value," Bush said in his comments to specially invited families at the White House.
Click to expand...
This makes me furious.

Apparently it's okay to waste eggs, but it's not okay to fertilize them and use them for research that could cure millions of people. Embryonic development is stopped before some of the cells differentiate into neurons, so there's NO POSSIBLE WAY the embryo can "think", have a "soul", or "feel" anything.

There is no life being killed, because the alternative is not to grow the embryos into eggs... rather, it's to avoid creating embryos in the first place. If embryonic stem cell research is murder, isn't lack of the research murder by inaction?

GWB needs to go live in a cave and enact sock-puppet shadow wars on the cave wall, in between his scheduled bible readings (can he even read? I've seen no evidence...). He needs to let the rest of us get on with science, the Monroe doctrine, and social progress.
 
On the principle of research I feel this move gives an already scientifically ignorant nation yet more reason to place mysticism over knowledge, leading to the overall decline of our nation's ability to remain competetive in the future...but in the end it's yet more money that Uncle Sam wants to spend on our behalf. I may be all for stem cell research and other things that conservatives find abhorrent but damned if I or anyone else should have to pay for things that go against core beliefs.
 
What he really did was to refuse GOV"T SPENDING for stem cell research.If you want stem cell research so much put up some money !!!
 
That's not why he vetoed it and we all know it.

If the government is going to fund any medical research, it shouldn't discriminate.
 
Mete, he specifically said he was vetoing the bill due to his beliefs, not because fed.gov shouldn't be involved.
 
+1, mete.

Why should the .gov pay for it if so many people find it distasteful? People who pay taxes that would go towards that research?

It's not a ban, Tyme. It just says that the government won't fund it. Big deal. Let universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies and planned parenthood come up with a different funding source for it.

Slow news day, I guess, if we're making a stink over this.:cool:
 
Why should the .gov pay for it if so many people find it distasteful?
Click to expand...
How about we turn that around?

Why should the .gov pay for a Congressional Chaplain or faith-based initiatives when so many people find them distasteful? And let's not forget all the judeo-christian relics lurking around various government buildings. Those items and paintings aren't free, you know.
 
Okay, tyme...

Go ahead and introduce a bill that de-funds those things. You have my support.

Seriously, you're making a mountain out of a molehill.
 
I happen to agree with tyme, though not for the same reasons and I don't hold the outrage....just the disbelief at the unbelievable double standard.

Let's get straight with this:
No one in their right mind can credit Bush with his first veto as a measure of "fiscal conservatism". He has no idea what fiscal conservatism means. It's quite OK for him to push a bill for Adult Stem Cell and Umbilical Stem Cell research by Federal Grant, but his opposition to embryonic stem cell research is somehow tied to a Constitutional dedication to the proper role of FedGov? I think not.

That out of the way, let me go on record as stating that I, too, oppose FedGov funding any research that is not directly related to Transportation or National Security..and even that in the most conservative sense. Art, NPR, the mating habits of the spotted owl....none of it deserves special taxpayer funding. If it's worthwhile, the free market will fund it - if not taxed to death.

But this guy just used the first veto of his Presidency to kill a bill which he described, not as "Constitutionally" or "Fiscally" unsound, but as "morally wrong". Yes, he has that prerogative....and I have the right to call it for what it I believe it is: a Presidential Obstruction to Legislative Will based upon his personal Religious Beliefs. It matters not one whit that he did what I'd have done....he did it for all the wrong reasons.

His oath is to uphold and defend the Constitution. To veto any bill on anything but Constitutional, Budgetary or Policy grounds is the act of a man who no longer takes his oath seriously...."morally wrong" as a Presidential Veto excuse just don't make it in my book. If I'd voted for his "morals", I'd have joined his Church.

God help us when we begin to view the POTUS as our "moral leader"....I've seen the results of that in too many desert nations. Shame on him for his inconsistency; and his short memory of the Oath he swore three years ago.
Rich
 
Of all the worthless and damaging legislation Duh..bya could have vetoed in the best interests of the country, he chose to veto something that promises a medical breakthrough.:rolleyes:

Thank you Jesus Lobby.:mad:
 
panties.gif


Of all the worthless and damaging legislation Duh..bya could have vetoed in the best interests of the country, he chose to veto something that promises a medical breakthrough.
Click to expand...

If it's really that promising then someone else will gladly fund it and get rich off any patents it produces.

I agree that the "morally wrong" stance is pandering, but I don't want the .gov funding it anyways.

I takes my victories as I can gets them.:p
 
I'm not religious in any sense of the word, but I agree with redhawk on this one. If so much good stuff is coming from the research how come there aren't any big companies flocking to it so they can patent/copyright all of the work and making themselves a mint? IMHO it's another pork barrel project that has had the pork taken out of it. All of those judeo-christian paintings and artwork are a part of our history and what our founding fathers based our country's value system after, you don't have to agree with it for it to be the way it is.


Edit: Nothing wrong with being outraged or PO'd, but try finding another funding source for the project and I doubt you would have much luck. If it was worth while a large company would already be funding it.
 
tyme have you stopped buying Microsoft products to boycott the fact that Bill Gates hasn't stepped up to the bat with his billions of dollars to fund this project? Have you stopped listening to NPR because its rich corporate sponsors haven't stepped up to fund it? :rolleyes:

On the other hand, would you mind if your elderly mother had to pay her taxes (collected at gunpoint) to finance for my own pet research project? I am alarmed that the government doesn't give me ten million dollars to study the effects of light pollution on the mosquito population in my backyard, with the hope of ending the worldwide malaria epidemic. :cool:
 
If it was worthwhile a large company would aready be funding it.
Click to expand...

You mean a large company like a pharmaceutical or another large company tied to the medical industry?:rolleyes:

I let you in on a little secret, it won't be funded by any company that has anything to do with the medical industry or by anyone hold stock in medical industry companies.

There is no profit in cures. However, treatment of symptoms keeps them coming back for more and the dollars flowing in.
 
You mean a large company like a pharmaceutical or another large company tied to the medical industry?
Click to expand...
How about a large tax exempt foundation that sponsors the whiney tiny evening bushbashing news on NPR?
 
Well said Rich Lucibella. I have long felt the government should take care of highways and national security. Stay out of the rest of my life and pocketbook. Let the free market take care of the rest.
 
You mean a large company like a pharmaceutical or another large company tied to the medical industry?

I let you in on a little secret, it won't be funded by any company that has anything to do with the medical industry or by anyone hold stock in medical industry companies.

There is no profit in cures. However, treatment of symptoms keeps them coming back for more and the dollars flowing in.
Click to expand...

Last time I looked around there were more multi million/billion dollar companies out there than just medical companies.
It's a good thing no ever comes up with cures or preventative medicine for anything, I love having my case of typhus, yellow fever, and rabies:rolleyes:
 
Well said, Don....not to mention pencillin-
Next thing, people will be guffawing at you about private funding of space travel. Bunch-o-Twinkies! ;)

Where on earth would we be without the guidance of a wise, judicious Federal Hand? :D
Rich
 
His oath is to uphold and defend the Constitution. To veto any bill on anything but Constitutional, Budgetary or Policy grounds is the act of a man who no longer takes his oath seriously...."morally wrong" as a Presidential Veto excuse just don't make it in my book. If I'd voted for his "morals", I'd have joined his Church.
Click to expand...

I stay away for six months trying to get my life in order, and the very first post I read makes me remember not just why I love this place, but also why I want to come home.

Rich, sir, you're a scholar and a gentleman.

The Office of the President is not a pulpit, nor is it a midshipman's bull session, nor is it a Star Chamber. It is the crucible in which the ores of today's world are smelted for their truths in accordance with the Constitution.

We forget that at our eternal peril - and it does scare me that so many people seem to be either forgetting that role, or relegating it so something of the neverwhen.
 
I'm glad he vetoed it. It would annoy me to know that even more of my fed.tax dollars would be funding something I disagree with.


tyme said:
Embryonic development is stopped before some of the cells differentiate into neurons, so there's NO POSSIBLE WAY the embryo can "think", have a "soul", or "feel" anything.
Click to expand...
We could argue your evidence that the embryo has no soul, but we would just end up agreeing that we just don't know when human life begins and exactly when a soul is present (are neurons necessary?). Since we don't know, we must err on the side of caution. Take stem cells from placentas - there's plenty of them to go around.


tyme said:
There is no life being killed,
Click to expand...
If it is a cell, it is alive. Amoeba's anyone? It may or may not be a human life, but it is life.


tyme said:
...because the alternative is not to grow the embryos into eggs... rather, it's to avoid creating embryos in the first place. If embryonic stem cell research is murder, isn't lack of the research murder by inaction?
Click to expand...
I believe you have that backward. An egg grows into embryo, not the other way around. And your logic is quite flawed. A woman's menstrual cycle kills an egg a month and it's not murder. Nocturnal emissions kill millions of cells. Clapping kills skin cells.

It is killing a living cell? Yep.

Is is murder. Nope.

But an embryo? Maybe.


tyme said:
GWB needs to go live in a cave and enact sock-puppet shadow wars on the cave wall, in between his scheduled bible readings (can he even read? I've seen no evidence...). He needs to let the rest of us get on with science, the Monroe doctrine, and social progress.
Click to expand...
Yawn... Bush is an idiot... blah, blah, blah. :rolleyes:

You're the libertarian - show me in the constitution where it says the fed.gov should fund stem cell research. This should be privately funded if it is done at all. I can't believe you're on the side of more government spending.

Looking forward to your response tyme, but I'll probably respond tomorrow. It's time for my daily bible reading.

-Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top