Bush vetoes stem cell research bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
I take that back, Mike. I'd missed the last 1/2 dozen posts.

As soon as this becomes an abortion debate or a Christian Beliefs debate, it'll be closed.
Rich
 
I'm not attacking Christianity here, I'm attacking the extreme side of it. I'm attacking the fact that people don't understand that even if you are the majority (like Christians) in this country, does not me the government favors you over the minority. Otherwise it wouldn't be democracy but just mob rule.

If you want to be christian, great, fine, dandy. But don't try to make it out like America owes its entire existence to that religion. There were other people who came to America besides the religiously persecuted.
 
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.
Click to expand...
I work for neurologists. Every day that I go to work I see patients with Alzheimers, Parkinson's, ALS, Multiple Sclerosis, dementia and a wide variety of other debilitating conditions. Every one of those people would benefit greatly from stem cell research and if it would take a million embryos to cure a single patient I feel it would be worth it. I place a higher stock in actual life over potential life.

I'll try to touch on a couple points made in the thread, for whatever my opinion's worth around here.

1. Embyos are not the only source of stem cells but unless the AAN has been pulling stuff out of their asses, they are the best source of stem cells. I'd love to see conflicting data, though.

2. Rich is correct in that Bush isn't showing any kind of fiscal conservativism here and is once again trying to legislate morality. He's not living up to the oath, he's pandering to the religious right that got him elected.


At first I approved of this move but now I'm not so sure. Yeah, he kept federal money from being fed into a program that many people disagree with and that should be handled by the private sector...but then again it's not like the money's being saved. It'll just end up in yet another pointless, expensive endeavor like the drug war or "global struggle against extremism".


Does this count as general welfare? If a cure for Alzheimer's is found because of stem cell research does that mean only people who supported the research in the first place should be privy to it? The same way people complain about the money being spent on the space program...every single person reading this thread owes their ability to afford and use a computer to the space program. I'd bet a tank of gas that at least half the people on this forum have had some kind of medical procedure that simply would not exist without the research done in space. Yet people still complain about the money being spent, feeling that they shouldn't have to fork over the cash since they're not seeing direct benefits in their own lives.

Would this count as general welfare? Could private companies be trusted with this when we all know there's far more money in treating a disease than curing one? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Oh I think we knew that way before this little episode. Hell I knew it when he was governor of Texas. Any other Texans remember when he put out Jesus Day? Perry sucks almost as much. I hate living in the same city as that *******.
 
OK, Rich...


"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."

Categorical dismissal of the religious concept that the soul is created at conception, not at "neuron generation."


"I feel this move gives an already scientifically ignorant nation yet more reason to place mysticism over knowledge..."

Mysticism? Attributing ignorance TO mysticism?


"Thank you Jesus Lobby."

"Religious nuts want to ban everything that goes against their beliefs."

And so forth and so on...
 
Can you produce a soul to be scientifically analyzed? We can produce neurons, nerves, tendons, etc. to show our side that embryos cannot think, much less survive on their own. Your concept of a soul, spirit, etc. is based on faith. Which is fine, but don't try to bring it into a medical/scientific field. Religion is what churches are for, not the hospitals.

Religion has hindered medicine for hundreds of years. Doctors were not allowed to dissect cadavers because it was taboo. Think of how much medical information could have been discovered a lot earlier and how more advance we would be today.

And he's right, the Religious Right wishes to impose their Temperance style living where we won't be able to drink, smoke, have pre-marital relations, and generally have fun because it's against the Good Book (TM).
 
I don't wish to debate the tenets of religion.

This board is not for that.

Nor is it for sniping comments about those who beliefs don't match your own.

It's always amazed me how so many people here spout tolerance as some sort of personal mantra/creedo/emblem and then go on to prove the depth of their hypocrisy by trashing individuals whose beliefs don't match up with their own.

Personally I don't think we should be spending money on stem cell research.

I don't think that mankind is worth a bucket of warm piss, nor is it worth saving.

But to those who do believe that, from either a religious or a scientific point of view?

More power to you.
 
I'm not sniping, I'm pointing out the fact that it's great if you have religious views. Really, I don't honestly *$#*%9 care. However, keep it out of the government and keep it from hindering science and medicine. That's all I am against. Do I care if people go to church and worship Jehovah, Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, Shiva, etc? Nope, that's fine and dandy. Now when you try to impose your stuff if tax-funded schools, courthouses, etc. That's when we have a problem. If that's intolerant, fine by me. :rolleyes:

And not all of use share you misanthropic view of humanity. There are those of us who actually enjoy our fellow man enough to wish to help them out as well as ourselves..
 
TBM, sorry, I made several mistakes in my post.
I mean grow embryos into fetuses, not eggs.
And yes, I meant human life, not life in general. Nobody complains about scraping skin cells or using soap or detergent to kill bacteria. Almost nobody takes issue with killing _any_ life... just some kinds of life.

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.
Click to expand...
The government has a broad popular mandate, unconstitutional though it may be, to fund medical and scientific research.

Bush took it upon himself to carve out a moral exception for embryonic stem-cell research. If my taxdollars are going toward any medical research, I want some percentage allocated to stem-cell research regardless of where those stem cells come from. The government should not get to pick and choose.

To be precise, this legislation was a reversal, by a Republican-controlled Congress, of the earlier ~2001 ban on government funding of embryonic stem-cell research. Amazing how with all the Republicans in the House and Senate, they still passed this legislation. Bush is on the conservative side even among Republicans.

Mike Irwin said:
Categorical dismissal of the religious concept that the soul is created at conception, not at "neuron generation."
Click to expand...
That's correct. I categorically dismiss religious concepts. Anyway, based on my near-zero understanding of Christian doctrine, even if the embryo has a soul, it isn't killed with the embryo. Human life hasn't started yet, so what's the problem? Christians seem to want to mix "soul" and "human life" together. I thought the entire point of life-after-death was to separate the two.
 
before this thread gets nixed due to the religious stuff, can y'all chime in on my question from above?

Does medical research count as the general welfare mentioned in section 8? Let's say you could actually specify that your tax dollars wouldn't go toward things you believe are wrong. Ten years from now you get Alzheimer's but due to stem cell research a cure was found....should you be allowed to benefit from research you refused to support?
 
[rant]
Once again... There is no General Welfare Clause in section 8 of Article I. If there were such a clause, then the writers of the Constitution were inherently stupid!... since they went on to actually list the powers of the Congress, which, if there were a general welfare clause, would not need to be listed because everything listed, and much more, falls under the general welfare.

The use of this so-called "power" is why we have so much government now! Alphabet agencies out the kazoo! The Congress is wrong about this. The Courts are wrong about this. And especially the Executives have been wrong about this.

The founders of this nation were not stupid people. They wrote into that document, a limited Federal Government. Not one with unlimited police powers. Not one that could control every facet of your lives via the Commerce Clause. Not one that could use the Elastic Clause to do whatever they wanted....
[/rant]

As for the veto, I agree with the veto itself. I strongly disagree with the smarmy reasons Bush used.
 
:confused: pardon my ignorance of the constitution but what does this bit mean?

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Click to expand...

I know it's not known as "The General Welfare Clause" but isn't it basically saying that Congress has the power to tax us in order to provide for the general welfare of the peeps? If not then what's the point of that sentence?
 
I'm not attacking Christianity here, I'm attacking the extreme side of it. I'm attacking the fact that people don't understand that even if you are the majority (like Christians) in this country, does not me the government favors you over the minority. Otherwise it wouldn't be democracy but just mob rule.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

How is the latter quote not an attack on Christianity? It wasn't limited to one "extreme" group; you slammed all of them.

As for the "general welfare clause", we all need to remember the Constitution only grants certain powers to the federal gov't. The power to tax for the "general welfare" is meaningless without a specific authorization to spend said funds on the "general welfare," which the Constitution does not grant. General welfare means those things already covered (i.e. powers already granted to the feds). It doesn't mean whatever will help humanity out the best. That wasn't a power granted to the feds (the age old right of the sovereign to control every aspect of the lives of citizens was specifically withheld) until the Supreme Court modified the Commerce Clause via judicial intepretation under threat of Roosevelt's court packing ambitions.
 
"Anyway, based on my near-zero understanding of Christian doctrine,"

And there's your problem. You don't understand the Christian concept of the point at which life begins, yet you're attempting to negate it anyways.

Try understanding the concept before attacking it.

"Human life hasn't started yet, so what's the problem?"

See the above. YOUR interpretation is that human life hasn't begun. Obviously others have a different interpretation which is the basis for their beliefs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top