Bush holds veto pen over stem cell bill
- Thread starter crabcake
- Start date
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
All those small cap stem cell bio stocks are really cheap right now w/ everything that has gone on against stem cell research. If you wanted to make a political play hedging for a democrat gain in 2006 and 2008, you could buy cheap and hold. It just depends on if you feel the political climate will change that heavily in the next few years toward stem cell research. Just a thought for the liberals...
R
residentofcre
Guest
ylexot said:
Very well put...
Lilypad
Well-Known Member
Thousands and thousands of embryos are destroyed every year in fertility clinics. They are created in petri dishes as part of fertility treatments like IVF; then they are discarded. If Pres. Bush and his administration truly believe that destroying an embryo is a kind of murder, they shouldn't be wasting their time arguing about research funding: They should immediately shut down every fertility clinic in the country, arrest the doctors and staff who operate them, and charge all the wannabe parents who have been wantonly slaughtering legions of the unborn. But of course they'll never do such a thing. (Nor, to be absolutely clear, do I think they should.) Bush could not care less about this issue except as far as it helps burnish his pro-life credentials among his base.
As far as Osama-YES-but I doubt he'll ever be caught.
As far as Osama-YES-but I doubt he'll ever be caught.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
I'm all for it. I say it should be passed, it's just something I don't agree with Bush about.
Crab, you make a good, logical argument. I frankly admit that my opinion is based purely on emotion and the :guh: feeling I get in my stomach when I read about this sort of thing.
There is a segment of our society that will do literally anything to de-value human life.
First it was abortion. That was disconcerting enough, and if you don't believe me try explaining it to a 6 year old and watch the look on their face. They're not crazy and they haven't been jaded by the pro-abortion rhetoric that has brainwashed us into believing it's a "right" and of no consequence.
Next came partial-birth abortion, just to up the stakes. Explain that one to a 6 year old and you'll put them in a coma. But, again, we've been brainwashed by a constant barrage of "it's a woman's right".
Now we are to believe that it's okay to farm embryos in order to "save lives", even though there's no evidence that it benefits anyone other than the researchers looking for federal grant money.
I say enough is enough. It's barbaric and inhuman.
There is a segment of our society that will do literally anything to de-value human life.
First it was abortion. That was disconcerting enough, and if you don't believe me try explaining it to a 6 year old and watch the look on their face. They're not crazy and they haven't been jaded by the pro-abortion rhetoric that has brainwashed us into believing it's a "right" and of no consequence.
Next came partial-birth abortion, just to up the stakes. Explain that one to a 6 year old and you'll put them in a coma. But, again, we've been brainwashed by a constant barrage of "it's a woman's right".
Now we are to believe that it's okay to farm embryos in order to "save lives", even though there's no evidence that it benefits anyone other than the researchers looking for federal grant money.
I say enough is enough. It's barbaric and inhuman.
What do you all think about a couple having one or two spare children to use as parts in case something happens to the kid they want to raise? They could keep the other bodies frozen in case they need them for something.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
vraiblonde said:What do you all think about a couple having one or two spare children to use as parts in case something happens to the kid they want to raise? They could keep the other bodies frozen in case they need them for something.
Have you been watching the move "The Island"? I wouldn't mind having spare parts lying around.
It has nothing to do with "de-valueing life" as you said earlier, it's a matter of when you think life is, and quite frankly no one can prove that.
citysherry
I Need a Beer
vraiblonde said:What do you all think about a couple having one or two spare children to use as parts in case something happens to the kid they want to raise? They could keep the other bodies frozen in case they need them for something.
You know, in a perfect world no child would be brought into the world for selfish or exploitative purposes, but it happens all the time. Already parents have additional children so they can get a transplant for themselves, or for a child.
If you define life as "something that is alive"Bustem' Down said:
, then life begins at conception. End of story.Is it dead? No. Is it inanimate? No. Then guess what? It's alive, and therefore "life".
They're body parts, like an eyeball or something. But that is still life.dck4shrt said:
So I wish the abortion crowd would stop with the silliness that an embryo isn't "life" and just "unviable tissue" or whatever crap they spew.
Seriously, pro-abortion people will do any kind of backbend and contortion rather than admit that they are for the killing of an inconvenient life. They hide behind all sorts of convoluted language and pretzel logic because the truth is fairly brutal and unpalatable to the masses. So they polish the turd to make a sale.
cattitude
My Sweetest Boy
vraiblonde said:What do you all think about a couple having one or two spare children to use as parts in case something happens to the kid they want to raise? They could keep the other bodies frozen in case they need them for something.
When my friend's son couldn't find a match for his bone marrow transplant, they were told that a baby may save his life if the baby was a match. My friend and her husband agonized over that decision. They were close to 40. They decided not to have a baby. Their son had a bone marrow from a mis-matched donor and ultimately died. She has second guessed her decision every day since his death 3 years ago. Granted, the baby didn't offer a 100% percent guarantee. I just don't think until you are actually in that situation you can really say what you would do. Having been fairly close to the situation and imaging what I'd do, I think I'd have to try to save my child at all costs.
I can tell you right now that I wouldn't have a child to use for spare parts. The very thought of that is revolting to me.cattitude said:
dck4shrt said:
Well, exactly. My bad if I didn't communicate it well. You have a sense of right and wrong, but it proceeds from SOMETHING, even if you don't know from where it comes. It proceeds from those sources you named - but it has nothing to do with logic or reason. People do not make moral judgments based on logic - they're based on belief in what is right and wrong. They can construct a logical argument FROM that, but the gist, the basic axiom at the root of it it all is what they believe. Because if logic and reason always formed the rationale for moral judgments of those RELYING on "logic", there would always be agreement on every matter. It's one of the things I RELY on with my statistical programming - the numbers ALWAYS come out exactly the same if they follow the same logic every time.
But moral judgments are NOT logical. It is NOT logical to be compassionate most of the time. It is NOT logical to take horrible risks against a weak payoff. It does NOT make sense to send a team of men to risk their lives into a burning building to save a single child. It is not logical to hurt the human gene pool by preserving the lives of those with genetic flaws. But we do things like that. We do not love or fear or hate because of reason or logic. You can use logic to guess whether someone will feel that way, but the reaction is not logical.
You may have noticed that Vrai has stated her atheism - but her aversion has been stated as little more than believing it to be barbaric and gruesome. It may be an oversight, but I haven't seen you take much issue with that observation.
The bottom line - the "axiom" upon which the arguments are based - are all too human. There comes a point in the Socratic dialogue where you get to the end and just say - sorry, I just believe that.
dck4shrt said:
Not to be rude, but I think that's sensationalistic crap. So far, it's been mostly talk, and as I mentioned in other posts, other nations are NOT withholding funding and it still has yet to save a life. If we curtail a fraction of the world's research and spending, and the rest of the world has yet to yield a result - I'd call that prudent.
dck4shrt said:
The gist of my argument is that THAT's the fundamental reason everyone gives, or, that most people give - that they believe it's right, or wrong. The best argument FOR it is that it's going to save lives - but this hasn't played out so far across the planet. That's just as much a hazy judgment call as saying you think it's wrong because it imperils humans because you're basing a judgment on something that has very little tangible support. Throw in the possibility that you might be opening a Pandora's box of gruesome human experimentation and it might be wise to err on the side of caution.
I once posted on here quite a while back that I sure don't want to see a plethora of gruesome human experimentation should we ever authorize something like human cloning. I don't want to see humans grown without brains to avoid claims of barbarism. I don't want to see sub-humans generated for menial labor. The point made in both the movie and book 'Jurassic Park' is that scientists often do things because they can, but rarely make the judgment of whether or not they should.
I think this is one of those instances. I think they're perilously close to experimenting in ways they simply shouldn't. Would you think it ok to not harvest these cells - but to continue to grow the embryos into fetuses, so that the organs themselves can be harvested? Where does it stop? Wouldn't reason or logic say "why not"? Wouldn't normal human morality say, that's revolting and wrong?
dck4shrt said:
For one, I don't know that he does - he may very well, but I don't know that, because I don't have a quote and I'm not speculating without one. If he does, I actually respect the fact that he does not do that, for the same reason I respect the fact that Lincoln was opposed to outright banning slavery - because even though he was a life-long abolitionist, it was not his job to enforce his beliefs - he could only act in accordance with them.