Bush has vetoed!

firemarc924 · **Posted:** Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:51 am

Well, the veto was about stem cells. I think. So what do you think about it?

PianoManGidley · **Posted:** Sat Jul 22, 2006 3:25 am

Here is the USA Today story on it. It's difficult for me to take a stance on this, because I don't know a lot about the issue of stem cell research.

If I could see clear-cut, irrefutable evidence that stem cell research would vastly benefit the medical world by saving time and resources, then I would most likely be in favor of it. And on a side note, I don't like the sound of the last line of that article I linked to--targeting opposing individuals seems like very shady and downright childish politics to me.

IantheGecko · **Posted:** Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:09 pm

I say good on him. I am opposed to embryonic stem-cell research. After the first cell has split, it has unique human DNA, and the ability to grow and replenish itself.
Here's what I found on another forum I visit:

Mike Fox wrote:

The biggest part that annoys me about the situation is that there is indeed a way to harvest stem cells that not only does without the destruction of any life, but also gives more cells with which to experiment.

It's called cord-blood. Simply, a mother can offer to donate cord blood. When the baby is born, the umbilical cord is tied off to form a long ballon, and then cut so that a lot of the umbilical blood is still inside. This blood is rich in stem cells and doesn't hurt the donors at all to lose!

Too bad cord blood itself is controversial. But still, it's better than using embryos.

sb_enail.com · **Posted:** Sun Jul 23, 2006 1:16 am

I think anything is better than using human embryos. That's kinda crossing the line if you ask me. Sen. Ted Kennedy lambasted Bush on the issue and seemed to think that embryonic stem cells were the only way anyone would ever get stem cell treatment.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Sun Jul 23, 2006 1:23 am

Time for one of those crazy, right wing, christian nut jobs, you've heard so much about, to chime in.
I am actually not opposed to embryonic stem cell research. I figure that the embryo they're harvesting cells from is going to be destroyed anyway, might as well get SOME good out of an otherwise wasted life.

Jitka · **Posted:** Sun Jul 23, 2006 1:23 am

I can't believe anyone would veto a bill that could conceivably lead to a cure for paralysis, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and Parkinson's disease, for the reason of protecting a microscopic clump of cells that never would have become a human being anyway.

Acekirby · **Posted:** Sun Jul 23, 2006 1:40 am

I have always been on the side of stem cell research. I suppose that Bush's veto was to be expected, but seriously.

JohnTheTinyCowboy wrote:

I can't believe anyone would veto a bill that could conceivably lead to a cure for paralysis, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and Parkinson's disease, for the reason of protecting a microscopic clump of cells that never would have become a human being anyway.

Thank you.

Didymus · **Posted:** Sun Jul 23, 2006 2:04 am

Because it leads to the dehumanization of beings that, if they had been allowed to develop, would have become human babies. The reason conservatives oppose this is because it could conceivably lead to the planting and harvesting of human embryos for no reason than to harvest their cells. This is inhuman, and I would never support such a barbaric practice.

The problem is that there is no evidence that stem cell research can actually accomplish any progress in treating these illnesses. Alheimer's is a very good example - no one even knows what causes it, much less how to treat it.

So there it is: the deliberate ghoulish harvesting of the remains of unborn human children for the sake of MAYBE finding ways to treat illnesses, with very little evidence that it will help, and very slim chances of success. I personally do not believe that the risk is worth the potential return.

If they intended to restrict their research to those samples already harvested, fine. But I cannot support harvesting more without evidence of possible success, and absolutely no allowance for any kind of planting and harvesting business.

Alexander · **Posted:** Sun Jul 23, 2006 2:20 am

I have to agree with Ian and Didymus.

I'm already agaisn't Abortion, so if Stem Cell Reasearch is only used in an effort to try a to find a cure to an illness that we don't even know if it could possibly cure it, then I'm going to stand agaisn't it.

I don't support the experimentation of any life if it itsn't 100% known it could lead to something good. Especially with people.

PianoManGidley · **Posted:** Sun Jul 23, 2006 2:35 am

Alexander wrote:

I don't support the experimentation of any life if it itsn't 100% known it could lead to something good. Especially with people.

I can't think of how any science could ever say for sure that testing on a certain creature WILL 100% lead to a clear-cut beneficial result. Science, I think, is less about finding what works and more about finding what won't work. If scientists were SO SURE that testing on a creature would lead to finding the desired answer, then I think they would have progressed to a stage where actual testing would not be necessary. But testing on their hypotheses HAS led to benefits. In fact, "54 of 76 Nobel prizes awarded in physiology or medicine since 1901 have been for discoveries and advances made through the use of experimental animals."

Jitka · **Posted:** Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:22 am

Didymus wrote:

The reason conservatives oppose this is because it could conceivably lead to the planting and harvesting of human embryos for no reason than to harvest their cells. This is inhuman, and I would never support such a barbaric practice.

Actually, no, it couldn't, because on the same day he issued his veto, the president also signed Senate Bill 3504, which prohibits the creation and destruction of human embryos and fetuses for research purposes and was passed unanimously by the Senate. Its corresponding bill was also passed unanimously in the House, I believe. So I really can't see the harm in using embryos that are going to be incinerated anyway to do some good, even if we don't see immediate, spectacular results.

fossilise_apostle · **Posted:** Sun Jul 23, 2006 2:09 pm

Didymus wrote:

Because it leads to the dehumanization of beings that, if they had been allowed to develop, would have become human babies. The reason conservatives oppose this is because it could conceivably lead to the planting and harvesting of human embryos for no reason than to harvest their cells. This is inhuman, and I would never support such a barbaric practice.

The problem is that there is no evidence that stem cell research can actually accomplish any progress in treating these illnesses. Alheimer's is a very good example - no one even knows what causes it, much less how to treat it.

If they intended to restrict their research to those samples already harvested, fine. But I cannot support harvesting more without evidence of possible success, and absolutely no allowance for any kind of planting and harvesting business.

No, this wasn't a body harvest bill, it was a stem cell bill.

Where's your proof that this will lead to a "body harvest"?

What's Her Face · **Posted:** Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:25 pm

As far as I've heard, the blastocysts are usually grown entirely in the lab, Didymus. They wouldn't be planted in the womb.

There is actually a lot of potential with stem-cell research - regard. The anti-research people just say that there's no evidence for the benefits of it because they want to justify their own argument.

I don't personally get what the problem is, and I'm not sure that Bush made the right decision. If there is even the slightest chance that stem-cell treatments can enhance people's lives and cure crippling genetic illnesses, I say it's worth it.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:45 pm

JohnTheTinyCowboy wrote:

So I really can't see the harm in using embryos that are going to be incinerated anyway to do some good, even if we don't see immediate, spectacular results.

That's the "non-problem" I have with stem cell research.

Like Didymus, I fear that allowing research on embryos COULD lead to the creation of an embryo just to butcher it. That bothers me, slightly more than the thought of getting rid of embryos created for implantation (I'm against the whole "destroying unused embryos" thing, but since it's going to be done anyway, might as well benefit from them if we can).

That's just my take, anyway. I hate to see life ended/destroyed, etc, but, if it's going to be done anyway, there might as well be some benefit to society from it. Benefits make it seem like less of a waste of life.

fossilise_apostle · **Posted:** Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:44 am

I love the way some of are suspicious of science. It warms my heart.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:01 am

fossilise_apostle wrote:

I love the way some of are suspicious of science. It warms my heart.

I love the way you spam and add nothing to the conversation. It boils my blood.

On a non-stem cell related note, I find it really funny that Bush lasted so long without vetoing anything. I'm guessing it had something to do with his party being in control of congress. It's interesting to note that veto powers are not explicitly granted in the US constitution.

fossilise_apostle · **Posted:** Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:58 am

StrongRad wrote:

fossilise_apostle wrote:

I love the way some of are suspicious of science. It warms my heart.

I love the way you spam and add nothing to the conversation. It boils my blood.

That must be at least the fifth time you've accused me of spam. I have seen you accuse others of spam too. This is the only forum where i see this happen.

Get a life!

IantheGecko · **Posted:** Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:01 am

Why don't you contribute more than one useful sentence to a debate? When you don't, that's spam.

fossilise_apostle · **Posted:** Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:06 am

I have a very large understanding of this subject, I could very easily, but what would be the point when I'm talking to a bunch of people whose views on the subject are automatically coloured by religion, thereby making their views redundants.

Me arguing about this here isn't going to get the bill approved, nor will it save all the lives of the people who will die because of George W's short sightedness.

Did anyone see him on TV parading around with a bunch of children? it was sickening.

IantheGecko · **Posted:** Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:08 am

Then if you're not going to post, please leave.

fossilise_apostle · **Posted:** Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:28 am

Knock Knock, anyone home?

I just did post, Mr. Charles. A pretty good one too.

IantheGecko · **Posted:** Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:31 am

Quote:

I have a very large understanding of this subject, I could very easily, but what would be the point when I'm talking to a bunch of people whose views on the subject are automatically coloured by religion, thereby making their views redundants.

Seems like you refuse to post in this topic.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:50 am

fossilise_apostle wrote:

I have a very large understanding of this subject, I could very easily, but what would be the point when I'm talking to a bunch of people whose views on the subject are automatically coloured by religion, thereby making their views redundants.

By all means, oh great one, enlighten us uneducated religious drones.

Didymus · **Posted:** Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:57 am

fossilise_apostle wrote:

Knock Knock, anyone home?

I just did post, Mr. Charles. A pretty good one too.

More like, "a pretty lousy one."

You offered absolutely no information to contribute to the conversation, just your anti-religious opinion. If you can't argue your point in a coherent manner, don't bother to post.

Quote:

That must be at least the fifth time you've accused me of spam.

Maybe because this is the fifth time he's seen you spam.

bwave · **Posted:** Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:31 pm

fossilise_apostle wrote:

Knock Knock, anyone home?

I just did post, Mr. Charles. A pretty good one too.

Grow up kid. I find it funny that you actually take yourself seriously. Seeing as you posted that stupid post in general, your ban should come in 3..2..1..soon, if you continue this way. And for the record, most religious people (Like me) who oppose the bill, only do so because there is so much funding going to embryonic stem cell research, even though some scientists feel that adult stem cell research is equally as promising. When I hear that the scientists will spend their money entirely on adult stem cell research first (no moral consequences), then I will support the bill.

I'm done talking to you.

pianomangidley wrote:

And on a side note, I don't like the sound of the last line of that article I linked to--targeting opposing individuals seems like very shady and downright childish politics to me.

I agree with you. I have actually met him before. Everyone in new york calls him Chuck, and not charles. I dont like him that much. Oh, and we have hilary clinton. Honestly, I wish we didnt get all the crappy politicans in NY.

ramrod · **Posted:** Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:30 pm

PianoManGidley wrote:

And on a side note, I don't like the sound of the last line of that article I linked to--targeting opposing individuals seems like very shady and downright childish politics to me.

Well, unfortunately, it's how ploitics is currently running. I don't agree with it either, but that is how it is. Quite unfortunate.

Cybernetic Teenybopper · **Posted:** Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:51 pm

Science really is a sort of grand comedy of errors when you think about it. Heavily-funded and hyped projects come to nothing, while a piece of moldy bread accidentally changes the world. I'm rather disappointed the bill got vetoed, though, since there did seem to be quite a bit of promise in stem cells. The reason scientists prefer embryonic stem cells to adult stem cells is that embryonic cells are (or seem to be) quite a good deal more versitile than adult ones, which seem to be limited in what they can turn into.

Any research done on an unwilling living thing, from a mouse to a human, makes me slightly uneasy, but I know that progress must come at a cost. Although I wouldn't want people creating embryos just for the sake of stem cells, I fall in the camp that is completely in favor of putting unused fertility clinic embryos to good use. They can't keep forever; at one point, they would have to be thrown away. What bigger disgrace can be done to a life than to throw it away without purpose? What greater honor than using it to better the life of another? We laud organ donors; without people donating their bodies to science, medical students would not have cadavers to practice on. We need not make waste.

I saw a bumper sticker that said, "Don't take your organs with you to Heaven, because Heaven knows we need them here." I'm not religious like that, but I think the same sort of idea applies here.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Bush has vetoed!

Who is online