Forum Home | Login

terpfan1980

Join Date 08/2004

+13

Should Pres. Bush veto stem cell bill? What would you do?

In case you've been under a rock, or have just ignored the topic in general (hey, one of the biggest threads on the topic was from our favority Clueless Old Liberal, so I don't blame you if you did ignore it), with the passage in the House of Representatives of a bill that encourages stem cell research, President Bush has threatened to make use of his veto powers for the first time in his presidency.

Never mind that it is fairly unusual that a President would not have ever vetoed a bill during his first term (which, logically has been the case now because Republicans control both the Senate and House, and have primarily worked in conjuction with the President, rather than going off in their own direction, as they have in the case of this bill). The President is clearly threatening to veto the new stem cell bill that has come up in the House and may be passed in the Senate (though that is not a given at this point).

For a news reference on the issue, see the following article from CNN.com:

Bush threatens veto on stem cell research bill

(CNN) -- President Bush on Friday threatened to veto a bill expanding public funding for embryonic stem cell research that could make it to his desk by early next week.
"I made [it] very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life, I'm against that," Bush told reporters. "Therefore if the bill does that, I will veto it."
It would mark the first veto of Bush's presidency.
Supporters of the bill dispute Bush's depiction of the research, saying it's critical to advance scientific discoveries that may help cure diseases.
The bill would broaden the limits on funding embryonic stem cell research beyond the strict rules the president outlined four years ago.
Bush limited funding for research on human embryonic stem cells to cell lines already in existence at that time.
Bush aides have said they're concerned the measure still may pass the GOP-led Congress by a veto-proof margin. They're working to convince enough Republicans to support the president.
In the House of Representatives, 290 votes are needed to override a veto.

Note that the House bill passed on a vote of 238-194 -- far less than the two-thirds support that would be needed to override a veto.

Nows the time for JoeUser's and JillUser's to speak up on the issue.

Should the President veto the legislation?

Should Congress over-ride the veto and expand the research as suggested in the House bill?

If you faced the choice that the President has made, what would you have done?

Finally, to throw a monkey wrench into the discussion, lets say you have a friend or relative that has Alzheimers, or Parkinson's Disease. Would it change your convictions at all, knowing that perhaps the research would help lead to a cure or treatment for your friend or relative, or would you stick by your convictions regardless?

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Personally, I hope he won't veto the bill. Having said that, I think it would dishonest of him not to, as it's been a long time stance of his, and something the voters essentially approved of when they voted him back in.

My grandmother was recently diagnosed with Alzheimers, and while I doubt any meaningful and applicable research will come about in her lifetime, since the disease tends to run in families, the stem cell research might someday benefit one of my parents or even my brother or my children...or me.

I will admit that I have only a rudimentary grasp on this topic and have not read widely about the research and potential applications or the political aspects of this.

However, I see no ethical quandary with using discarded embryos for this purpose. If there were an ethical issue, it might be with creating those excess embryos in the first place.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Great article Terpfan!

1: Yes, he should. As Texas Wahine already stated, it is his position that embryonic stem cell research should not be federally funded, he needs to stick by his standards.

2: Each Senator and Representative should vote their conscience, without regard to party lines or polls. Let the over ride vote fall where it may. That is how it should work in a Representative Republic.

3: The same as Prs. Bush.

4: Considering that both embryonic and adult stem cells are equally important in finding cures and treatments for disease and dysfunction of organs; and embryonic stem cell research is still at least a decade away from curing or treating anything; I think our scientific researchers' time and resources would be better used in continuing research on adult stem cell research (which are already being used to treat patients). I would be all for federal funding of adult stem cell research.

Successfully updated karma reason!

4: Considering that both embryonic and adult stem cells are equally important in finding cures and treatments for disease and dysfunction of organs; and embryonic stem cell research is still at least a decade away from curing or treating anything; I think our scientific researchers' time and resources would be better used in continuing research on adult stem cell research (which are already being used to treat patients). I would be all for federal funding of adult stem cell research.

There's just one flaw with this line of thinking. If they don't "do" the research they'll never get any closer to an actual treatment using the embryonic cells. Just because it's a "possible" decade away means they should stop doing the research? Although that doesn't mean they should stop doing research on the adult cells.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm new here, and this is my first post, so here goes......

Should the President veto the legislation?

Absolutely NOT

Should Congress over-ride the veto and expand the research as suggested in the House bill?

Absolutely YES

If you faced the choice that the President has made, what would you have done?

Resign in disgrace.

Successfully updated karma reason!

True, but the point is, the only advantage embryonic stem cells have over adult stem cells (at least from what I've read) is that embryonic stem cells can be used to reproduce entire organisms, while adult stem cells can be used to reproduce tisses and organs. Unless it takes a whole new body to cure or treat a condition, there is no advantage to being able to reproduce an organism. This debate seems so much more about money and politics than actual science. They are already doing great things with adult stem cells, so why not take all the money and energy being wasted on this issue and put it into research that is paying off... adult stem cells. It seems more like they are only complaining because they have been told they can't do it... at least not with federal funding.

I now return this thread to Terpfan's topic... already in progress.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Veto it.

Nazi Germany used Jews and other undesirables to greatly further medical knowledge. Did the ends justify the means? SHould we use less desirables as human guinea pigs just because it MIGHT do some good?

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't understand why this President is still trying to appease the Christian right wing. He's a lame duck, I don't get it. If I were him I wouldn't veto it because I would care about the legacy I leave behind, and how I look 30 years after I'm done. I mean what are we in the dark ages, where because of one religions ideals we set back the ability to cure diseases, rebuild the human body, and prolong are lives. I mean wtf.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Nazi Germany used Jews and other undesirables to greatly further medical knowledge. Did the ends justify the means?

That's like apples and oranges, stem cells aren't fully grown people, they don't feel pain. In fact it heavily depends on personal ideals on whether we are even destroying life in the first place.

Successfully updated karma reason!

That's like apples and oranges, stem cells aren't fully grown people, they don't feel pain. In fact it heavily depends on personal ideals on whether we are even destroying life in the first place.

How do you know? Even Doctors dont know. Have you ever seen Silent Scream? It is the first step down a very slippery slope to take the weakest and most defenseless of us and use them for supposed research.

The Nazis thought the same way you did. That Jews and the other Undesirables were not really human. It is apples and apples.

Successfully updated karma reason!

How do I know, well first off stem cells don't have brains, or hearts, or nerve cells for crying out loud (no pun intended)...

If the Nazi's thought like me then the people that burned "witches" at the stake think like you.

This will be looked at in the same light as we look at the time when Newton didn't publish his Principa Mathematica because of religious persecution, or Galileo not publishing his works because of the same reasons. Imagine where we would be today if they hadn't published their works.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Stem cells are not made out of thin air, they are harvested from Fetuses. So as long as you dehumanize the source, your conscious is clear! What hypocrisy!

And sorry, my ancestors were not liberals from Massachusettes.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Should the President veto the legislation? - Yes.

Should Congress over-ride the veto and expand the research as suggested in the House bill? - No.

If you faced the choice that the President has made, what would you have done? - Same thing, if not more fervently fought against it.

A) People are willing to adopt these embryos, but there is little infrastructure to enable it. Those who say they are useless and good for nothing else but discarding overlook that fact.

B)This has been a lynch-pin issue for pro-abortion advocates, since governmental acceptance of this practice would be an official statement that life does not begin at conception. If we can experiment on embryos, then either they aren't people, or we allow using children for scientific purposes.

C)You have to draw a line somewhere. To me and millions of others, once an egg is fertilized, the process is begun. Some say that since they have never been in a womb that they don't count, but I again assert that they are viable lives that when implanted become children. Sperm isn't. An egg isn't. You have to draw a line somewhere, and that is the most ethical place to draw it, imho.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Do you know why they call them embryonic stem cells? Maybe because they come from embryos not fetuses. How about you do some research on how they actually work and then comment. That's the problem with a lot of people in this country, they rely on heresy and what their pastor, priest, or religious leader tells them as absolute without actually reading from a scientific source.

Last time I checked, people where declared witches because of religious reasons which is why stem cell research is being held up, for religious reasons.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You can call them zygotes, it does not change where they come from. It is not an Ova, it is not a sperm cell.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"Do you know why they call them embryonic stem cells? Maybe because they come from embryos not fetuses. How about you do some research on how they actually work and then comment."

Like I said, you have to draw a line somewhere. If you ignore the fact that these are viable you ignore the reason they were made in the first place. You make a big distiction between an embryo and a fetus, others don't.

Your beliefs aren't any more valid than mine, thanks. If you decide that your non-religious beliefs are pre-eminent, and only non-religious people can make decisions based upon their beliefs, you are as much a "belief" bigot as anyone else.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Zoomba

Join Date 11/2002

+114

Should Bush veto - Yes... he said he would, he is obligated to do so now

Should Congress overturn - I believe so.

What would I do in his place? - I would allow the legislation to go through.

I think we need to be careful when we start to limit our knowledge because it crosses religious beliefs. The line in the sand of where life begins is too subjective, and siding with the most conservative estimate and conservative fears when we know so little could prove to be far too limiting. If we always sided with religious conservatives in regards to medecine, we may have never pushed forward with open heart surgery since many at the time felt that if the heart went bad, it was an act of God, and to fix it would be to defy God's will. I'm not saying their beliefs are unfounded, I just feel we don't know enough yet to say one way or another.

Successfully updated karma reason!

think we need to be careful when we start to limit our knowledge because it crosses religious beliefs. The line in the sand of where life begins is too subjective, and siding with the most conservative estimate and conservative fears when we know so little could prove to be far too limiting. If we always sided with religious conservatives in regards to medecine, we may have never pushed forward with open heart surgery since many at the time felt that if the heart went bad, it was an act of God, and to fix it would be to defy God's will. I'm not saying their beliefs are unfounded, I just feel we don't know enough yet to say one way or another.

Whew! Thanks! I was beginning to believe I was becoming liberal! Thanks for not agreeing with me! I have my conservatism back! Yeaaaaa

O, I almost forgot. You are wrong.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Zoomba

Join Date 11/2002

+114

O, I almost forgot. You are wrong.

Is this where I start name-calling? I forget... Seems I misplaced my Radical Liberal Handbook (With Foreword by Dabe)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Is this where I start name-calling? I forget... Seems I misplaced my Radical Liberal Handbook (With Foreword by Dabe)

Boy you are getting rusty! No, you should have crapped on the blog with your first entry instead of writing a very well thought out response!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Your beliefs aren't any more valid than mine, thanks. If you decide that your non-religious beliefs are pre-eminent, and only non-religious people can make decisions based upon their beliefs, you are as much a "belief" bigot as anyone else.

Well, although I wasn't talking to you, you're right my beliefs aren't any more valid than yours. With that kind of rational we could say Hitler's beliefs where just as valid as ours. Kind of brings up a conundrum. I'm not a belief bigot I just wouldn't hand an important job to a retard instead of a genius. It's practicality.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Zoomba

Join Date 11/2002

+114

With that kind of rational we could say Hitler's beliefs where just as valid as ours.

You can only take moral relativism so far. After a certain point things do reach an absolute (killing 6million people because they're the wrong religion is bad, m'kay?)

In regards to embryonic stem cells, it's still relative to how you feel. The definition of life is fuzzy enough that it can be argued either way with neither side actually giving solid unquestionable proof.

So at this point the issue really is up in the air. You and I can support this research, Baker and Guy can oppose it. We all vote our minds and whoever gets the most votes wins. That's the beauty of the system when it comes to issues like this.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"...we may have never pushed forward with open heart surgery since many at the time felt that if the heart went bad, it was an act of God, and to fix it would be to defy God's will. I'm not saying their beliefs are unfounded, I just feel we don't know enough yet to say one way or another."

I take serious issue with that. If you read their biographies you will find that many people who made great strides in medicine were also very religious people. You will also find that there are a great many people who are involved in medical research that disagree with the use of viable human embryos.

We aren't Christian Scientists who believe we should just pray and do nothing. This isn't the "most conservative" opinion, not by a long shot.

The point at which an embryo is fertilized is a natural boundery. Before, it is just parts, after, it grows into a human. If you choose some murky time afterward, it is an arbitrary line. Do you choose a time when it looks like a person? Who gets to decide when that is?

Successfully updated karma reason!

The point at which an embryo is fertilized is a natural boundery. Before, it is just parts, after, it grows into a human. If you choose some murky time afterward, it is an arbitrary line. Do you choose a time when it looks like a person? Who gets to decide when that is?

Exactly! For after fertilization, there are only 2 paths available. It will either die, or become a human being. It will not be a dog or monkey.

Successfully updated karma reason!

P.S. Again, I think you can't overlook the fact that government sponsership of human embryo experiments would be a total validation of the idea that life doesn't begin at conception. If the Bush administration allowed human embryos to be experimented on, they would lose the ability to state that life begins at conception in terms of abortion.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If you decide that your non-religious beliefs are pre-eminent, and only non-religious people can make decisions based upon their beliefs,

Actually, I believe in God. Here's the tough part though, the ancients and man throughout time as religion flourished, had no idea or even anticipated the eventual discovery of embryonic stem cells. With that said we are all left to our own devices and moral reasoning to interpret what God would want us to do. So who is doing the interpreting, the churches or the people. That's where I feel that we are hindering reasearch as more people are not reading up on what the technology consists of and just following others. I'm not pointing anyone out here, I speaking in general. Speaking of myself, I feel I am pragmatic. This is not something that will be stopped, because other nations are not stifling research such as South Korea. Should we come in behind many other nations that are not allowing relgion to heavily influence their goals? It's going to advance whether anyone likes it or not. I'm just realizing we need to be the benefactors. Heavily opinionated yes, realistic yes, without sacrifice no.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: