[luke warm]

bush vetoed his first bill today... whatcha think?

stem cell veto

[Winstonm]

See other post - there really should be a separation between church and state.

It's dumb and religiously motivated by ignorant people who have no clue what stem cells are, how they are cultivated, or what they are for. It's nothing more than Jim Jones saying, "Here, have some cool aid," and all the followers chugging it down.

Or am I being too blunt?

[keylime]

President Bush did very well to veto this.

Embryo stem cell research has still yet to provide one significant progression medically, while adult stem cell research has yielded over 70 verified medical advances. Furthermore, once again he has stood his ground ensuring that life is sacred.

I am quite happy.

[Winstonm]

We seem to have hit the alpha and omega of opinions already....good for you Dwayne - courage of your beliefs. I applaud that and hope you would give me the same courtesy.

[mike777]

Glad to see this veto, as a side note it may spur more private money and overseas money for this issue, while more Usa gov't money goes into Adult stem cells.

Could be a Win win...without devaluing LIfe.

Many say the unspoken issue in this debate was cloning.

[inquiry]

This is a huge mistake. The restrictions on Embyonic Stem Cell research is absolute needed to be removed

[helene_t]

Agree with Winston. Not that I'll necesarily blame anyone for motivating political decisions by religion - after all, moral issues are relevant in politics and some people lend there moral positions from their religion. But this is just irrational.

But I was glad to see that a California referendum a couple of years ago decided to spend state money on stem cell research.

[Gerben42]

I think it's regrettable but hardly surprising. The point is that people have worked hard to make this a reasonable bill and then president Bush comes in like an elephant in a china store and says VETO, and here it comes - out of personal religious beliefs.

Now this veto is not the worst part since it just stops more government money for this research. Private investors are of course free to fund this essential research.

The worst part comes only on page 2:

Quote

As he vetoed the bill, he signed another that was passed unanimously in both chambers that would ban "fetal farming," the prospect of raising and aborting fetuses for scientific research.

Do or did you know anyone in your family with Alzheimer's disease or cancer? Curing and treating these diseases need stem cell research.

My grandfather from my father's side died of Alzheimer. My grandfather from my mother's side died of a type of cancer that would probably benefit from stem cell treatment. It is a horrible way to end life for both the affected and their family. Not allowing this kind of research to continue is to condemn many more to the same fate.

[hrothgar]

I'm strongly in favor of allow any form of stem cell research. I see nothing wrong with allowing embryos to be specifically created in order that stem cells be harvested. (And, fo what its worth, I don't get particularly worked up about cloaning).

Simply put, embryo's might be alive. They might even have the potential to be come human. However, they are not human and should not be granted the same rights as a humans. Human existence on this planet is predicated on kill other living creates. We eat plants and animals. We harvest their body parts. We hunt them for sport. We kill them for our pleasure. At some point in time, a fetus become sufficiently well developed that it should be considered as human. I'm not sure preciely when this happens. However, I've always been comfortable with the tradional third trimester demarcation. I don't care what happens before this... If folks want to abort a fetus because resulting baby would have the "wrong" color eyes or be the "wrong" sex, so be it. I couldn't care less. In a similar fashion, If a scientist believes that certain experiments can only be befored with embryonic stems cells, I think that he should be permitted to pursue this research.

If we ignore "morality" and simply look at the practical, embryo's get discarded all the time. Fertility on predicated on a model that creates large numbers of embryo's, the vast majority of which will never come to term. Many of the embryo's don't implant themselves in the womb. Others aren't need and sit arround frozen in jars. Might as well put these to some practical use. (I'm well aware that Bush was "surrounded" by so-called Snowflake children. However, I doubt that a policy designed to maximize the chance that every embryo that is created could get brought to term is remotely practical)

Question for Jimmy, Dwayne, and Mike:

Should we also ban fertility treatment?

[Al_U_Card]

If Dubya cared more about saving the lives of CURRENT human beings then there might just be room for the hypocrisy that this action represents. Politicians do what they think will get them re-elected; fortunately for us they are often wrong. Even more fortunately for us, we still have free elections available to do so (for now). Almost makes you nostalgic for Clinton......

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Jul 20 2006, 07:27 AM, said:

Should we also ban fertility treatment?

i've never thought about it... on what grounds would we do so? that it aids in the birth of a child? but you do raise an interesting point... imagine bush had not vetoed that bill, and couple this with a bill allowing the 'farming' of embryos for stem cell research... i can see a huge money making opportunity for women here, eh? take fertility drugs, have quints, abort them and sell the embryos, repeat process

who said entrepreneurialship was dead

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Jul 20 2006, 07:48 PM, said:

take fertility drugs, have quints, abort them and sell the embryos, repeat process

Most women don't need "fertility drugs". But it's not a good idea. Embryo farms would use in-vitro embryos. The raw material is left-overs from IVF treatments.

I think it's inconsequent to allow IVF treatment and abortion while not allowing the left-overs to be used for stem cell research. It's ok to throw an unwanted embryo (whether aborted or left-over from IVF treatment) in the sink but it's not ok to use it for medical research.
<sarcasm>
I suppose that if embryos could find use in military research rather than medical, Bush would be all for it.
</sarcasm>

[Winstonm]

Quote

I suppose that if embryos could find use in military research rather than medical, Bush would be all for it.
</sarcasm>

Hmmm. Embryos of Mass Destruction. You might be on to something here.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 20 2006, 08:48 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 20 2006, 07:27 AM, said:

Should we also ban fertility treatment?

i've never thought about it... on what grounds would we do so? that it aids in the birth of a child?

You are making the federal government should not fund embryonic stem cell research because it destroys a life...

In vitro fertilization is no different. In vitro treatments lead to the create of large numbers of surplus embryos, many of which can not be implanted.

Whats the difference between the two cases?

[Al_U_Card]

hrothgar, on Jul 20 2006, 02:14 PM, said:

You are making the federal government should not fund embryonic stem cell research because it destroys a life...

Oops! There goes the military budget....

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on Jul 20 2006, 10:39 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 20 2006, 02:14 PM, said:

You are making the federal government should not fund embryonic stem cell research because it destroys a life...

Oops! There goes the military budget....

Do do find it telling that the most vocal "Christians" on the discussion list all seem so gleeful at the thought of bombing lots of Arabs...

John Dean recently released a very interesting book titled "Conservatives without Conscience" documenting the rise of authoritarianism within the Republican party and the close ties to fundamentalist Christians. Its hard to look at some recents posts without thinking about the trends that Dean is discussing.

[Al_U_Card]

Jimmy Carter was uniformly vilified as being the least "Presidential" president in the last century. He was likely the most peaceful, intelligent and worthy man to hold the job in the same period. The worst they could throw at him was his gentleness, having an unruly brother and an outspoken mother.......this was the last gasp from the dying humanitarian U.S. Will the tide turn? Al Gore missed the boat by a hanging chad......(and a certain amount of skullduggery). You can't tell how someone might have acted but you sure can tell how badly someone IS acting. The beast is not 666 but rather WWW (and I don't mean the internet....) The zealots will just quote the father, the son and the holy veep.

[barmar]

helene_t, on Jul 20 2006, 02:17 PM, said:

I think it's inconsequent to allow IVF treatment and abortion while not allowing the left-overs to be used for stem cell research.

If the Bush administration had their way, abortion wouldn't be allowed, either. They're not inconsistent, just stuck with Roe v. Wade.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Jul 20 2006, 02:14 PM, said:

In vitro fertilization is no different.  In vitro treatments lead to the create of large numbers of surplus embryos, many of which can not be implanted.

Whats the difference between the two cases?

i don't know what the difference is

Quote

You are making the federal government should not fund embryonic stem cell research because it destroys a life...

i haven't said anything at all, i merely posted a link and asked for opinions

Quote

Do do find it telling that the most vocal "Christians" on the discussion list all seem so gleeful at the thought of bombing lots of Arabs

i've read and reread my posts and see no hint of glee... also, since i was the one posting and since i am at least partially in tune with my thoughts, i can't recall any feelings of glee

here are two hypothetical questions for you (someone told me they heard bill o'reilly ask it, so you're forgiven for simply ignoring it as the curiousity of a deranged neo)...

1) if israel unilaterally laid down it's weapons, drew back to their country, and then threw all military weapons into the ocean, would that end the bloodshed?

2) if the terrorists did the same, would that end the bloodshed... i never heard whether or not o'reilly answered the questions but i think i can... i think you can too...

on #1, i think israel would be attacked and destroyed... agree? on #2, peace... that's my opinion, anyway

al said:

Jimmy Carter was uniformly vilified as being the least "Presidential" president in the last century.

i don't remember vilification, but i do remember him being ineffective as a president... i think criticism of him comes from both side of the aisle... but i tend to agree with you, i think he was/is a good man and might could have been a good president... it just so happens that he wasn't, not in that particular 4 year period...

[Free]

While not willing to sacrifice the "life" of innocent embryo's, he's still the one ordering to torture people in Guantanamo, and killing innocent people WITH a concience and with families in countries all over the world. Can anyone be more hypocrite?