Bush vetoes stem cell research bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.


Quote:
Click to expand...

Interesting one. The only actual scientific method to settle this is to say "At which point is there irrevocable sentience?" That is, at which point is the brain sufficiently developed to know what it is, and what's going on around it?

Dunno about you, but I had the first glimmer of that at age 9, and it didn't really all start to make sense until.... er... well, it still doesn't and I'm 32 now. But let's call it 15 for the sake of when I actually started making life-changing decisions on my own and started carrying them out to their conclusions.

The thing is... embryonic stem cells. They hold the potential to save millions of lives, or even better improve the quality of life of millions per annum. Everything from re-growing nerve-tracks for folks with severed limbs to growing new skin for burn victims by way of growing artificial bone marrow for leukemia victims, new rejection-free heart valves, new darn everythings.

Either way, it's not the purview of 1600 Pennsylvania. It's the purview of the spirituality and ethos of the Involveds.

Is an embryo alive? Yes. Is it sentient - almost certainly not.

We shoot animals without remorse. We don't shoot people without spectacularly good provocation. Why? Because people are sentient. Self-aware. Thinking life - the precious kind. The kind with a mind, and (arguably) a soul.

I have no darn idea if sixty-four dividing cells have a soul, but I can tell you for tootin' it doens't have a mind - there's just not enough there for it to have one.

Then again, I'm pro-choice, rather than pro-life - so perhaps there's an insurmountable barrier right there.

Peace to you, either way.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Does he then get a pass for pushing a bill, on the same day, to Federally fund research for Adult and Umbilical Cord Stem Cell research?

Let's call our positions here honestly. Is the argument his refusal to fund private research by your hard earned dollar; or just his rejection because, to him, it's "morally wrong"?

Given the facts above, GW can ultimately claim only one of the two positions. And, personally, I don't want MY President making decisions on "moral grounds" for issues that are as morally contested as this one; no matter which side I'm on. I'd prefer he hunker down and cloak himself in something more appropriate....like the Constitution of the United States....uniformly; across the board.

He doesn't get a pass on this one simply because he agrees with our particular Moral View....that is specifically what creates (and divides) Sunni from Shi'ite. It's a dead end in terms of leadership of a Constitutional Republic.
Rich
 
I dont beleive it had anything to do with Dubya's personal morality, but the political morality of losing votes from one of thier core groups of supporters.
 
I agree with his veto. Keep the Government out of it. The government had the human genome project for 11 years and didn't accomplish squat. They turned it over to private industry and they were able to decode it in under two years. Anything the Government funds, it controls. If it was such a wonder science private industry would be researching the heck out of it and no one would be pushing for getting the Government involved. Its smoke and mirrors to me. A way to make republicans look bad. Remember they want to starve children and put old folks on the street, why not make them anti-cripples too.
 
Does he then get a pass for pushing a bill, on the same day, to Federally fund research for Adult and Umbilical Cord Stem Cell research?

Let's call our positions here honestly. Is the argument his refusal to fund private research by your hard earned dollar; or just his rejection because, to him, it's "morally wrong"?

Given the facts above, GW can ultimately claim only one of the two positions. And, personally, I don't want MY President making decisions on "moral grounds" for issues that are as morally contested as this one; no matter which side I'm on. I'd prefer he hunker down and cloak himself in something more appropriate....like the Constitution of the United States....uniformly; across the board.
Click to expand...

He doesn't get a free pass from me on this one. Either he is for providing government money for stem cell research or not. I would rather he put money into something else, like funding my new airship for space travel, but I guess I'll have to fund it myself. Look out Mars here I come:cool: How about getting back to something less controversial like data mining:eek:
 
Redworm you said...

On the principle of research I feel this move gives an already scientifically ignorant nation yet more reason to place mysticism over knowledge
Click to expand...

And the frightening part is, that's a potential road to theocracy. Pardon me, but I don't think we wanted this nation to be completely taken over by a religious majority.

In response to DonR101395: Most the Founding Fathers of this nation were actually Deists, Christianity was just a part of their belief at the time as Deism doesn't have to pertain to one religion, and many Deists in fact can also choose to accept an organized religion. As for corporations not funding stem cell research, it's because it's a relatively untapped field. Why don't oil companies stop destroying our environment and instead switch to biodiesels? It's because it's relatively untapped and they see it as not worthy of profiting from. Leave it to big corporations to pay off our elected officials, as for vetos because of "personal moral" beliefs, that's absurd I think Congress should vote against the veto.


Epyon
 
In response to DonR101395: Most the Founding Fathers of this nation were actually Deists, Christianity was just a part of their belief at the time as Deism doesn't have to pertain to one religion, and many Deists in fact can also choose to accept an organized religion. As for corporations not funding stem cell research, it's because it's a relatively untapped field. Why don't oil companies stop destroying our environment and instead switch to biodiesels? It's because it's relatively untapped and they see it as not worthy of profiting from. Leave it to big corporations to pay off our elected officials, as for vetos because of "personal moral" beliefs, that's absurd I think Congress should vote against the veto.
Click to expand...

You're correct on the definition, but it's generally acepted that our country was founded on christian beliefs. That was the point I was making. As for comparing this topic to biodiesel, I'll use an argument that was used above. Why would Shell Oil put money into biodiesel when they are already making money hand over fist on oil? If biodiesel is going to become a tapped resource it will have to be done from a non oil related very rich entrepreneur who wants to assume the risk. The same is true of stem cell research in my opinion.

Edit: Christian beliefs does not equate to a theocracy. I'm athiest and have no fear of a theocracy due to the fact that we have such a wide variety of beliefs in the U.S. that one belief system never rises to the top in total power.
 
He's already throwing money every where else, why not on something that could be worth wild? We could stop the war on drugs and divert the power to the warp core........ I mean stem cell research.:p
 
My wife has early-onset Alzheimer's. I'm not asking for your sympathy, just being honest so that you know there is no way I can have an unbiased opinion on this subject. Having said that, I must say that I can't understand how anyone (except those with honest religious convictions) could look on the President's veto as anything but the most stupid act committed by any President that ever served this country. 4.5 million people have Alzheimer's today and the number is growing. If a cure is not found it will simply destroy our health care system in the next 20 years. Alzheimer's is only one disease that embryonic stem-cell research might hold the cure for. If I told you that a terrorist organization had a plan to kill 4.5 million Americans and destroy our health care system but that the president refused to fund a program that could thwart the plan, would that seem reasonable?
Also, don't think the the Legislative branch is an innocent bystander in this debate. Prior to sending this bill to the President for his signature/veto they sent him a budget that actually cut funding for all Alzheimer's research. He signed that.
 
Jad,
I'm sorry for your situation, but I believe your argument is faulty. It's not the president or legislator's fault that there is not enough private money interested in stem cell research. The issue has nothing to do with terrorists, it has to do with dedicating government money for private research. I'm not against stem cell research. I'm against funding it with tax dollars instead of private money. Like many government programs IMO what will happen is we fund it, then the researchers profit from it. If they want to profit from their research let them fund their research. It may be viewed as a crass or cold hearted view, but I don't believe we should be paying. Alzheimers is not new, it's been around for years without breaking us and it will be around until someone pays for the research to cure it. We've been searching for a cancer cure for much longer and still don't have an answer.
 
He doesn't get a pass on this one simply because he agrees with our particular Moral View....that is specifically what creates (and divides) Sunni from Shi'ite. It's a dead end in terms of leadership of a Constitutional Republic.
Click to expand...

Rich, that's probably the most poignant thing I've heard anyone say at the firing line that I can remember. And I agree wholeheartedly with its perspective.

But I see nothing wrong with milking a victory for a victory. Did the Russian victory against the German advance at Stalingrad become any less valuable because the Russians didn't have the same government system we did, or the same value for their soldiers? No. Just because the Christian Coalition obtained a victory here, I still consider it a victory for my (our?) side of this issue as well.

And placental/umbilicus stem cell research still continues. Under the Federal dollar.
 
Epyon, took what I was going to say.

You know why China is going to smoke us in about 20 years? Religious nuts want to ban everything that goes against their beliefs. It's great you believe a guy was nailed up to some lumber, more power to you. Really! But keep out of my tax-paid schools, buildings, and research. Stem Cells can cure a myriad of illnesses. Christianity is a part of our heritage....sadly. It involves killing millions of natives and burning people alive because they were "witches". It's the negative part of our history, not a positive. This is a bad move. The president should make decisions based on the good of the country, not a religious belief. Embryo's don't have thoughts or feelings. They can't even survive on their own which scientifically qualifies as not being alive. If you don't like it, why not go to a country that shares your views on abortion: Iran/Afghanistan/Sudan etc. They're so advance.......light years ahead of us.
 
I agree with the veto. Why?

I'm Catholic, so I find it morally wrong. And besides, they've been working with them for years, and haven't found a single treatment for cure; plus, they can become cancerous. "Adult" stem cells, on the other hand, are being used to treat a bunch of illnesses, and they don't turn into cancer cells.

I'm also a Libertarian, and believe that you can't make laws based on morality. But, as a Libertarian, being fiscally conservative, I believe that government should never be involved with funding any medical research anyway.
 
I did some research on the subject a while back, most of which I have blissfully forgotten. The gist of it though, was that embryonic stem cell research is a big lightning rod and little more. It's not the only source of stem cells, it's not the best source for potential medical breakthroughs(which is why Big Med is not rushing to throw dollars at it), it's not the best use of dollars for the effort and its prominence is all tied up with the moral agendas on BOTH sides of the religious/political aisle.

As such, the Bush veto is no more a moral commentary than the pushing of the agenda itself was(and where is all the angst over that?) and it emphatically does not put an end to stem cell research. At least, not unless those doing the research place more value on their own moral and/or social agenda than they place on the research itself.

As for that whole "Christianity as a negative part of our history" spiel, you owe the existence of this nation to that little negative, and you clearly can't differentiate between actual Christianity vs the past acts of specific groups hiding behind the label. Thus I suppose I can see why there's no issue for some over the moral posturing from both sides on THIS issue. It's all those EVUL Christians...
 
Eh, not all Christians are evil, mind you. But the puritans are an example of what not to follow, a theocracy. You can't legislate morality. People have tried it with Prohibition and Intelligent Design. Both are bad to allow. And I am moral, I don't need a religion for that.

I doubt I owe too much to Christianity for my existence. Eventually other explorers or businessmen would have ventured here for various reasons and have in fact.

This country was not founded on Christianity, try as you want it to be. It was founded on simple concept of liberty to everyone. The God referred by the founding fathers is "Nature's God" which is really just a Deistic term. It bears little resemblance to the fire and brimstone deity that likes to kill people who think for themselves.

And Zing Zang, I think an Over Dose of free thought is needed more than morality.
 
I did some research on the subject a while back, most of which I have blissfully forgotten. The gist of it though, was that embryonic stem cell research is a big lightning rod and little more. It's not the only source of stem cells, it's not the best source for potential medical breakthroughs(which is why Big Med is not rushing to throw dollars at it), it's not the best use of dollars for the effort and its prominence is all tied up with the moral agendas on BOTH sides of the religious/political aisle.
Click to expand...

+1

The ONLY reason for this argument is to perpetuate the abortion issue (And yes, I know the embros used in research do not come from abortions). True medical research doesn't care about stem cells from embryos. If there was anything to the research, money from all over would be funding it. Keeping the embryo an "unborn baby" or "human tissue" is the issue.
 
I'm glad to see some people waded into the argument and pointed out that Bush did not "veto stem cell research." He didn't even ban all funding since that has already been happening. But the research that has been federally funded is limited to certain "lines" of stem cells that are already in common use. Can't go out and harvest more.

Look, I'm basically pro-choice. But I have noticed in the last 20 years that there are people out there that are 100% against anything that "looks like" it involves abortion. If you take public opinion polls, we are split on the issue. It isn't just 10% that are pro-life or anything like that. So I've modified my personal beliefs to make some room for these people. Especially since I've met many of these people in small town America and they are some of the most bedrock citizens you can imagine.

Yes, the pro-life people are part of Bush's base. He needs to listen to them politically. But I really believe he should also do so morally. These people get VERY VERY upset when you suggest that some of "their tax dollars" should go to things like this. Just as upset as many of us get when they want to spend money on anti-gun ideas. If the pro-life people had their way, a lot of things would be banned that are now legal. It seems to me that compromising by allowed stem cell research but just not spending Federal money on it is reasonable. If you are a scientist you can seek private funding. You can take your research overseas if you like. You just can't expect the US government to underwrite your reseach if it is going to involve new stem cell lines.

Gregg
 
A couple of posts here are, to my way of thinking, thinly veiled attacks on religious beliefs.

I thought that wasn't permitted under the rules of this board?

Or has something changed recently?
 
It's not, Mike. But point them out.

For my own part, I simply quoted the President in his own words and demonstrated that he is absolutely not against SCR; just against certain kinds, based on it being Morally Wrong".
Rich
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top