Bush holds veto pen over stem cell bill

[crabcake]

<input value="" president="" bush="" name="p" type="hidden"><input value="c1,i,yn,c3" name="sourceOrder" type="hidden"><input value="<p style=" font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-weight:bold;font-size:13px;padding:0;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:.5em="" type="hidden">

WASHINGTON - Pleadings from celebrities, a former first lady and fellow Republicans did not move President Bush from his determination to reject, with the first veto of his presidency, a bill expanding federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

Nor was Bush swayed by two days of emotional debate in Congress, punctuated by stories of personal and family suffering, that plunked lawmakers into the intersection of politics, morality and science.

Pre-caffeinated pondering: the same people who are against stem cell research cite their moral beliefs for their stance, saying we're playing God by deciding one life more valuable than another by destroying the embryos. Yet, this same group of people (for the most part) are okay with playing God when it comes to being the world's police and deciding that certain lives are more worthy than others when it comes to war.

While I see the safety/security of our nation and our allies as critical for our future, I also see the potential stem cell research has for our future generations as well.

If helping free some 3rd world country is worth a few lives (i.e., our troops), then I think finding cures for things like Parkinsons, Alzheimers, Diabetes, etc. is worth a few embryos that (IMO), don't technically qualify as a life form (living, breathing).

And if one's argument is "well, that's not MY belief; it's a life form at conception"; then that's your belief and you're entitled to it; however, you're NOT entitled to force it on me, and if you use that as your stance, be consistent in your application of placing value on life. If you're willing to sacrifice a few troops lives to carry on our nations values, then be prepared to sacrifice a few embryos to ensure people are capable of carrying one those values without the diseases we face today.

 

[crabcake]

Dur, here's the linkie.

 

[vraiblonde]

I am against using stem cells from aborted fetuses because I think it's disgusting and barbaric, much like the creepo that invented the partial birth abortion.

At some point we need to draw the line with just how callous we're going to be as a society regarding abortion. My line is at experimenting and harvesting parts from aborted fetuses.

 

[citysherry]

I am against using stem cells from aborted fetuses because I think it's disgusting and barbaric, much like the creepo that invented the partial birth abortion.

At some point we need to draw the line with just how callous we're going to be as a society regarding abortion. My line is at experimenting and harvesting parts from aborted fetuses.

Are you just against using stem cells from "aborted fetuses"? What about the thousands of embryo that are currently being cryo-preserved in fertility clinics? Should the couples that own these embryos be allowed to donate them to other infertile couples, destroy them or allow stem cell research on them?

 

[vraiblonde]

Are you just against using stem cells from "aborted fetuses"? What about the thousands of embryo that are currently being cryo-preserved in fertility clinics? Should the couples that own these embryos be allowed to donate them to other infertile couples, destroy them or allow stem cell research on them?

I don't like any embryonic experimentation. It's just so Mengele to me and it grosses me out. There are just some places we shouldn't go as far as medical research is concerned, and using embryos for spare parts is one of them, in my opinion.

I think the embryos stored in fertility clinics are creepy and gross, too.

 

[citysherry]

I don't like any embryonic experimentation. It's just so Mengele to me and it grosses me out. There are just some places we shouldn't go as far as medical research is concerned, and using embryos for spare parts is one of them, in my opinion.

I think the embryos stored in fertility clinics are creepy and gross, too.

I’m very much on the fence about this issue. On the one hand, the outcome for the unwanted embryo is going to be the same whether or not a stem cell is harvested from it. While on the other hand, the unwanted embryo was a potential life and should be treated with dignity.

 

[cattitude]

I’m very much on the fence about this issue. On the one hand, the outcome for the unwanted embryo is going to be the same whether or not a stem cell is harvested from it. While on the other hand, the unwanted embryo was a potential life and should be treated with dignity.

I feel the same. But I've had two friends lose kids that possibly could have benefited from stem cell therapy (for lack of a better word). When it's close to you, the decisions become harder..at least for me.

 

[citysherry]

I feel the same. But I've had two friends lose kids that possibly could have benefited from stem cell therapy (for lack of a better word). When it's close to you, the decisions become harder..at least for me.

My family has also suffered the loss of a child that could have benefitted from stem cell therapy/research. And when you’re in the moment of the crisis your frame of mind is “do whatever it takes to save the child’s life,” no matter what the cost either monetary, morally, ethically, etc.

 

[Kerad]

Yes...the embryos in question would be destroyed no matter what. So the argument that "life" shouldn't be destroyed for stem cells is an empty one.

The question is simply this: Would you rather have these embryos used for medical research and potentially save millions of lives....or thrown in the garbage? The majority of Americans favor the research. Where would we be if we had shunned advances in medical technology in our past?

It is so frustrating that this administration continually ignores the reality of science in deciding what's "right" for America. We'll just sit on the sidelines and let other countries pass us by as the leaders in science and medicine. We're outsourcing everything else...why not that, too?

 

[Lilypad]

Polls have consistently shown that more than 60 per cent of Americans support federal funding for expanded stem cell research.
Democrat and Republican party officials believe that the stem cell issue will have a considerable impact on a number of Senate and House races this November, but Pres Bush is not going to change his mind on using the veto, which means that the ban on stem cell research will remain in place at least until a new president comes to office in 2009.

 

[BlackSheep]

The vast majority of medical and scientific breakthroughs in this country's history have been accomplished by the private sector.There's no reason for stem-cell research to be any different. Let's end the political debate, and get back to scientific research.

 

[vraiblonde]

It is so frustrating that this administration continually ignores the reality of science in deciding what's "right" for America.

I'm with Bush on this - if I had to make the decision, I'd do exactly the same thing.

Just because you don't agree with "this administration" doesn't mean nobody does.

 

[vraiblonde]

The question is simply this: Would you rather have these embryos used for medical research and potentially save millions of lives....or thrown in the garbage?

If it were up to me, these embryos wouldn't even exist.

What kills me about this debate is that the people who say that the fetus isn't human and is merely a blood blob are the same ones now wanting to harvest their all-too-human stem cells.

So which is it? Is it a human or isn't it? If it's no more than clipping your fingernails, why can't you get stem cells out of fingernail clippings?

 

[SamSpade]

Just how many lives have been saved so far from stem cell research?

See, that's a stupid refrain on either side of the fence. Whenever any issue gets brought up and someone can't defend it on its own merits or failings, they always bring some red herring BS so that people cannot be against it.

Fine, I'll do the same. How many lives saved so far?

Anyway - my real point is unrelated. I don't get why people cry out about stem cell research - when all this bill and others related to it forbid is the use of government funds for conducting stem cell research with cells culled from a certain source. People make it sound as though ALL RESEARCH IN THE MATTER IS BANNED - and absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. One kind of stem cell research is not allowed federal funding - that's it.

The whole thing reminds me of that Gene Hackman/Hugh Grant movie, where Hackman experiments on homeless people - for the very noble purpose of allowing people to walk again. He just sort of skips over the part where he mutilates, hacks and kills unwilling subjects for his noble cause - because it will save lives.

 

[SamSpade]

Polls have consistently shown that more than 60 per cent of Americans support federal funding for expanded stem cell research.

Polls also show that 99% of Americans aren't doctors.

Statistics also show that most Americans would vote for an American Idol than vote for their congressman.

I'll bet most Americans have no idea what stem cells do, except the pack of BS that says they'll cure everything. And they have no idea what federal funding is actually ALLOWED to do with stem cells.

 

[Makavide]

I'm with Bush on this - if I had to make the decision, I'd do exactly the same thing.

Just because you don't agree with "this administration" doesn't mean nobody does.

I am also with Bush on this one.

Embryonic Stem Cell research has been ongoing for a number of years now. It is my understanding that nothing has come of it - just a vague promise that "we think with more embryoinic stem cell lines, we will accomplish more".

However, adult stem cells are also being utilized and that they are proving to be more adaptable then first thought.

 

[SamSpade]

Yes...the embryos in question would be destroyed no matter what. So the argument that "life" shouldn't be destroyed for stem cells is an empty one.

This is gonna sound dumb at first so bear with me.

I used to work in a restaurant where we cooked precisely to order. It was restaurant policy to throw away all food that was "left over". If we cooked too much filet mignon - it was to be thrown out - and not "put to good use" feeding the staff.

About ten years ago, a software lead decided to give cash awards to programmers for every software bug they were able to find, correct and document. For some inexplicable reason, the staff was able to detect an unprecedented amount of bugs and corrected them with astonishing swiftness - a feat never achieved before (or since, since the manager who created the idea was swiftly canned and the idea scrapped).

Now, why are these ideas relevant? Why would the restaurant manager tell staff "throw out leftover Alaskan crab legs"? Obvious answer, of course - incentive for them NOT to *deliberately* overcook, so that the overage could "be put to good use". Why was the software idea stupid? Because the staff could CREATE errors and receive cash for it. There was actually an incentive there to be dishonest in both cases - in both cases, staff was unintentionally being REWARDED for dishonesty.

Do you think that if a firm gets compensation for embryos that "will be destroyed anyway" that there's any reason whatsover for them not to CREATE embryos? Is there any reason to believe people will stay honest in this area, when it benefits them greatly to be barbaric and dishonest?

 

[Toxick]

If helping free some 3rd world country is worth a few lives (i.e., our troops), then I think finding cures for things like Parkinsons, Alzheimers, Diabetes, etc. is worth a few embryos that (IMO), don't technically qualify as a life form (living, breathing).

Well, it can be argued that the lives being sacrificed in the name of freedom, were given willingly by those who are killed. Nobody was forced to go into the military - they're all volunteers to the man - and (hopefully) their lives are not given in vain. They're certainly not given up in the name of 'research'.

Secondly, what kind of embryos are we talking about here? Are we talking a few nonviable cells, or are we talking semi-developed fetus. Because I believe there is a vast difference.

And if one's argument is "well, that's not MY belief; it's a life form at conception"; then that's your belief and you're entitled to it; however, you're NOT entitled to force it on me

Really - how about the enforcement of murder laws?

Because that's what it boils down to. If someone believes that life starts at conception, then you're talking to someone who sees the destruction of that life as no less than murder. Since murder is typically considered bad-form, it is an outrage to them that this particular kind of murder is being endorsed by many people - simply because it might benefit them personally.

This is the same old argument that pro-lifers and pro-choicers have daily. You have the pro-choicers saying that "Pro-Lifers are EVIL because they want to restrict my freedoms and tell me what to do with my own body". While a pro-lifer would say, "Pro-choicers are EVIL because they endorse legalized murder for the sake of convenience."

 

[SamSpade]

This is the same old argument that pro-lifers and pro-choicers have daily. You have the pro-choicers saying that "Pro-Lifers are EVIL because they want to restrict my freedoms and tell me what to do with my own body". While a pro-lifer would say, "Pro-choicers are EVIL because they endorse legalized murder for the sake of convenience."

One SLIGHT difference. Pro-lifers want to ban abortion everywhere - pro-choicers generally want it permitted everywhere.

This bill does NOT ban embryonic stem cell research - it just forbids federal funding for it. Cord blood stem cells, adult stem cells, privately funded embryonic stem cells - all permitted.

 

[citysherry]

This is gonna sound dumb at first so bear with me.

I used to work in a restaurant where we cooked precisely to order. It was restaurant policy to throw away all food that was "left over". If we cooked too much filet mignon - it was to be thrown out - and not "put to good use" feeding the staff.

About ten years ago, a software lead decided to give cash awards to programmers for every software bug they were able to find, correct and document. For some inexplicable reason, the staff was able to detect an unprecedented amount of bugs and corrected them with astonishing swiftness - a feat never achieved before (or since, since the manager who created the idea was swiftly canned and the idea scrapped).

Now, why are these ideas relevant? Why would the restaurant manager tell staff "throw out leftover Alaskan crab legs"? Obvious answer, of course - incentive for them NOT to *deliberately* overcook, so that the overage could "be put to good use". Why was the software idea stupid? Because the staff could CREATE errors and receive cash for it. There was actually an incentive there to be dishonest in both cases - in both cases, staff was unintentionally being REWARDED for dishonesty.

Do you think that if a firm gets compensation for embryos that "will be destroyed anyway" that there's any reason whatsover for them not to CREATE embryos? Is there any reason to believe people will stay honest in this area, when it benefits them greatly to be barbaric and dishonest?

And if federal funding were allowed on embryonic stem cell research the possibility exists that cures would happen that much faster. Also, one big problem with private stem cell research is ownership of the technology. Do you think that if a private firm gets compensation for being able to cure your child’s tumor, paralysis, autism, etc., with their stem cell technology that there’s any reason whatsoever for them not to only take those that can afford to pay? Is there any reason to believe private firms will stay honest in this area, when it benefits them greatly to take the highest bidder.