Will Bush Veto Stem Cell Bill?

[john5746]

Stem Cell Passes in the House

 

Bush hasn't vetoed anything yet. He will probably start with this one. He is in a no win situation, since I think most people favor it, but his evangelical base opposes it. We will have to wait until the next Pres, unless the Senate overrides the veto.

 

You think Bush will actually veto this or let it go?

[Douglas]

In my opinion, Yes, he'll veto the bill, and no, the house doesn't have enough votes to overide.

To my knowledge, the funding for SC research will remain the same as last year, he is vetoing the expansion of the funding.

[budullewraagh]

well, the senate is generally a bunch of whores, so they definitely wont override. i think bush will continue to be a complete jackass and he'll veto this in order to save hundreds of thousands of frozen living beings. and by saving i mean allowing them to be thrown into the proper trash receptacles.

[In My Memory]

Budullewraagh,

 

well, the senate is generally a bunch of whores, so they definitely wont override. i think bush will continue to be a complete jackass and he'll veto this in order to save hundreds of thousands of frozen living beings. and by saving i mean allowing them to be thrown into the proper trash receptacles.

[insane liberal rant=on]

 

Do you think Bush really cares about stem-cell research? Although I strongly believe he is going to veto this bill, I really dont know if he actually cares about stem-cell research at all (at least not in the way his pro-life supporters care).

 

In the interests of his "Culture of Life", there really isnt any way he can defend a veto of this bill that (if it passes) will definitely improve the lives of thousands of people with nervous system disorders, and if it doesnt pass will contribute to saving 0 human lives and no increase in the quality of life for many others. I've heard others defend a veto on fiscal grounds, however if Mr. Bush bases his veto on the price of stem-cell research, then clearly Bush would contradict his Culture of Life values by putting money above human lives (although why he didnt adopt this attitude before calling for US$100s of billions to fight the Iraqi war is beyond me).

 

I just dont see how he could veto this bill, enthusiastically support the death penalty, push forward the Iraq war despite civilian and American casualties, and of all things take virtually no action to combat the genocides occurring in Sudan and Rwanda - how does any reconcile all of these behaviors under a Culture of Life ethical scheme? Thats right, you just cant.

 

Bush's actions seem like he is only Pro-Life when its in his political interests, which I believe is precisely the motivation for his veto. This means Bush keeps the vote of the evangelical lobby (politically desirable), and many people will suffer and die without justification (morally abhorrent).

 

[/insane liberal rant=off]

[atinymonkey]

I honestly don't think it's much of an issue. The US is so far behind in the research stakes that even with the full support of the Government there are not going to be any significant developments produced. It's because of funding and public wrangling in the US that countries like Turkey are able to keep a relatively cutting edge research program. It prevents the dominance of one country in the field of medicine.

 

The results and benifits of the reseach will be the same, and the US can just buy the products like everyone else.

[Pangloss]

Well put, IMM.

 

Yes, he will veto. He's not going to make a statement like that and then step back from it, that would just be handing the political agenda for the next congressional session to... well... congress.

 

I do think the US will still have important contributions in stem cell research. There's plenty of private funding flying around, even before certain states like CA getting in on the action. But yeah, it's a big blow.

 

Just to look on the bright side for a moment, the NSF's budget ain't gettin' any smaller. All that money's still gonna be spent, and they always get more requests than they have money for. Maybe we'll get lucky and discover warp drive or something. ;-)

 

(Actually more like "a secure Internet". Last year the NSF was only able to fund about 8% of the cybersecurity proposals it received. It wanted to fund 25%. Source. )

[towjyt]

I understand that Bill Gates contributes hundreds of millions to charity each year.

 

Why not ask him for the money? Why not ask George Soros? Or Michael Moore? Or all of those Hollywood actors who devoted so much of their time and treasure to defeat George Bush in the election?

 

If this research was done with private money, it would be perfectly legal, so since there is so much money floating around to support political candidates, why not simply make a contributation to this research instead of giving it to the RNC or the DNC?

 

That is precisely what I intend to do, and when the political party that I supported last time calls, I am going to tell them where their contribution went.

 

If even 1/2 of us took action instead of whining about President Bush, we could solve the money problem without the government being involved.

[Douglas]

Bush's actions seem like he is only Pro-Life when its in his political interests, which I believe is precisely the motivation for his veto. This means Bush keeps the vote of the evangelical lobby (politically desirable), and many people will suffer and die without justification (morally abhorrent).

I think Bush keeps the evangelical vote either way....veto/no veto

 

Personally, I think Bush is making a mistake on this one, I see the veto as a loser.

 

As for your "suffer and die without justification " statement, It's a little premature, kind've like Kerry and Edwards who had Christopher Reeves stepping out of his wheelchair.

[-Demosthenes-]

Yes, he will veto. He's not going to make a statement like that and then step back from it...

I agree, he said he would. He'd be seen as a "flip-flop" if he didn't.

and if it doesnt pass will contribute to saving 0 human lives and no increase in the quality of life for many others.

Assuming that embryos are not alive in any human way. The very fact that it's still in debate merits further investigation before the government dumps money into the programs. I think it would be irresponsible to use something for science experiments or harvesting cells from that a considerable part of the population considers alive and human.

[In My Memory]

Demosthenes,

 

Assuming that embryos are not alive in any human way. The very fact that it's still in debate merits further investigation before the government dumps money into the programs. I think it would be irresponsible to use something for science experiments or harvesting cells from that a considerable part of the population considers alive and human.

No one denies that the embryos are biologically alive and human, however opposing stem cell research doesnt save them. Most stem cells come from surplus embryos produced from in vitro fertilization, there isnt any way to salvage them - what is strange is that people find this fact to be frightening, however it is really no more remarkable than the 4/5 of all fertilized ova that are lost before they ever implant, and no one mourns the loss of those embryos.

[-Demosthenes-]

Whether or not anyone mourns the loss of them is irrelevant. There are people who if they were to die then no one would mourn them, so under your logic why don't we just use organs from people who no one cares about?

 

All I'm saying is that if we don't know then it would be irresponsible to use them in this way.

[budullewraagh]

i've never understood the "conservatives'" approach towards abortion/stem cells.

 

if embryos are alive and human, why do we not have funerals for miscarriages?

 

why do people say "we have 2 children and 1 on the way"? why not "we have 3 children"?

 

if embryos are potentially forms of life, why do we not call men mass murderers? think of the 10^n of sperm lost with every ejaculation. why are women not serial killers? of the 400+ eggs a woman has upon birth, she uses how many?

 

what about birth control? what about the pill? each pill kills an embryo. may as well be an abortion.

 

why do people allow frozen embryos to be disposed of?

 

could someone enlighten me?

 

also, demosthenes, can you tell me how it is wrong to use embryos when they are going to be disposed of anyway?

 

another thought that needs to be raised is the fact that other nations will do stem cell research. can we risk being that far behind in a technology that most likely will be a huge industry within the next hundred years?

[Lance]

Christians believe that life starts at conception. Consider yourself now enlightened. I personally think Christians having a badly placed line is better than having no line at all.

[budullewraagh]

"Christians believe that life starts at conception. Consider yourself now enlightened. I personally think Christians having a badly placed line is better than having no line at all."

that doesnt answer any of my questions, so i will consider myself still lacking enlightenment. also, i challenge that statement. i was raised an episcopalian until a few years ago, and i never heard anything about conception being the "line" between gametes and child

[-Demosthenes-]

also, demosthenes, can you tell me how it is wrong to use embryos when they are going to be disposed of anyway?

Just becuase I don't think that they should be used in this way doesn't mean I want them to be desposed of.

another thought that needs to be raised is the fact that other nations will do stem cell research. can we risk being that far behind in a technology that most likely will be a huge industry within the next hundred years?

That is a potentially dangerous exuse, what else could it be used for?

[In My Memory]

Demosthenes,

 

Whether or not anyone mourns the loss of them is irrelevant. There are people who if they were to die then no one would mourn them, so under your logic why don't we just use organs from people who no one cares about?

*spits outs words placed in my mouth*

 

*sweeps that pile of straw under carpet*

 

All I'm saying is that if we don't know[/i'] then it would be irresponsible to use them in this way.

If we dont know what? That the stem cells come from human embryos? We are fairly sure that they come from the surplus human embryos from in vitro, but essentially that doesnt mean anything - the suplus embryos would be disposed if nothing were done with them.

 

Strictly as a matter of definition, the embryo is "alive" and "human" - meaning the cells will metabolize and the cells are genetically human. After that point, there isnt anything more to say. You have to ask "when are we ethically obligated to protect the lives of living organisms", the most reasonable answer is "when the living thing has an interest in continued existence", but the embryos dont have that interest (or any interest) at all.

 

I think of opposing stem cell research as essentially no different than opposing organ or limb transplants (the organs and limbs are just as alive and just as genetically human). There really isnt anything special about the surplus embryos or surplus organs that gives any special moral appeal, so what objection is there to studying them?

 

 

Lance,

 

Christians believe that life starts at conception. Consider yourself now enlightened. I personally think Christians having a badly placed line is better than having no line at all.

I agree, life does start at conception (it meets at the scientific definitions of "life" I've ever come across).

 

However, "life starts at conception" doesnt really have any ethical implications at all. There isnt any good reason why Christians assume life is intrinsically valuable, why only human life can make a claim to intrinsic value when other lifeforms cannot, or even explain if it is unethical to destroy life in the first place. (Presumably, the explanation lies in God's divine commands, but if God's commands have no more justification than "because I will it", then those commands and anything derived from them are empty and unjustified.)

[reverse]

yup.

 

and his dad will tell him to:

 

"Pick your battles son"

 

and he will say, "look dad, this is my most important battle".

 

and his dad will say..."see you for golf next tuesday then".

[-Demosthenes-]

*spits outs words placed in my mouth*

They were budellewraagh's words from post # 14 that I was responding to. I guess his posts aren't quite as interesting as mine

[atinymonkey]

They were budellewraagh's words from post # 14 that I was responding to. I guess his posts aren't quite as interesting as mine

 

Considering the quote was from your strawman in post 11, I don't think you are paying the least attention to what In My Memory is saying, not the other way round. Stop trying to act clever, and try not to act so dumb.

[jdurg]

GWB will veto this bill because it is in HIS religious interests to due so. We have already seen that Bush is unable to separate church and state in his decisions as President. Frankly, I wish there was a way to throw him out of office for using his religious beliefs in order to make laws and veto bills. If he vetos this bill and doesn't give any non religious reason for the veto, then I will lose the last nanogram of respect I have for the government of this country. (Especially if the house and senate fail to override the religion based decision by the president. I cannot wait for this religion driven bozo to get out of office). [stated by a type I diabetic who's only hope for a cure is via stem cell research].

[budullewraagh]

i dont think it has anything to do with his own religious beliefs. the government has twisted religion to gain the support of the zealots, and has been successful. i don't think he cares enough personally to make the decision based on his own beliefs. rather, i think it is merely another means for appealing to the zealots and keeping the ignorant just that, ignorant. when science is hindered, ignorance prevails. it is in his interest to keep the united states behind in sciences. consider his voting base. as a general statement, the south is severely lacking when it comes to public education. stem cell research would not happen in the south, because of the zealots. this would make the north stronger and more advanced. consider the economic power of the north, compared to the south, which still has yet to recover from the civil war, or so it appears when compared to the north. money and knowledge are power. if the south doesn't want money/knowledge, bush will defend them by preventing such money/knowledge from being obtained by the north.

 

now the question of nullification is arisen

[-Demosthenes-]

Considering the quote was from your strawman in post 11' date=' I don't think you are paying the least attention to what In My Memory is saying, not the other way round. Stop trying to act clever, and try not to act so dumb.[/quote']

Oh, I was replying to post #10

...however it is really no more remarkable than the 4/5 of all fertilized ova that are lost before they ever implant, and no one mourns the loss of those embryos.

Where she implies that we should use them because no one cares about them. My post was a direct reply to this.

[Pangloss]

I agree with Bud that it's not about religious beliefs. It's about politics.

 

I don't think it's an active effort to keep the US behind in the sciences, though -- I think it's a lack of understanding on the part of the far right about the important role science has played in our success, the ability of other countries to advance science without us, and an inability to look past certain ethical points to look at larger ethical considerations (i.e. they wouldn't necessarily even object on moral grounds if they looked at the whole picture objectively instead of ideologically).

 

I disagree with Bud's point about the south still recovering from the civil war, etc. You'd be hard pressed to find a more ignorant fool than a yankee who's confident in his knowledge that liberalism equals righteousness and that the northeast is the center of the civilized world. Typical blue-state foolishness. The kind of thinking that generates more failed Democratic candidates. You need to move past that kind of nonsense.

 

The problem we have right now in this country isn't the far right. It's the confluence of power in both extremes, to the detriment of the center. Our inability to compromise will, some day (hopefully not in my lifetime), be the death of this nation.

[revprez]

GWB will veto this bill because it is in HIS religious interests to due so. We have already seen that Bush is unable to separate church and state in his decisions as President.

 

In what way is that a deficiency?

 

Frankly, I wish there was a way to throw him out of office for using his religious beliefs in order to make laws and veto bills.

 

And I wish we could throw secularists out of the country. Aren't you glad we live in a country where neither of these extreme views prevail?

 

If he vetos this bill and doesn't give any non religious reason for the veto, then I will lose the last nanogram of respect I have for the government of this country.

 

When you invent an empirical ethic, I'll stop thinking of you as a hypocrite.

 

(Especially if the house and senate fail to override the religion based decision by the president. I cannot wait for this religion driven bozo to get out of office). [stated by a type I diabetic who's only hope for a cure is via stem cell research].

 

Why should Bush value your life more than an embryo's? You don't even like him.

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

I agree with Bud that it's not about religious beliefs. It's about politics.

 

More like it's about passing off ass-end snap commentary as informed analysis.

 

I don't think it's an active effort to keep the US behind in the sciences, though -- I think it's a lack of understanding on the part of the far right about the important role science has played in our success...

 

Why don't you show us some evidence that the far right generally dismisses "the role science has played in our success?" In the past thirty years, we've seen the Democratic party's national and state power diminish as Republicans piled on election victory after victory until they controlled the White House, the Congress and the majority of the statehouses. So where's the evidence that the far right is ignorantly surpressing scientific and technological progress?

 

...the ability of other countries to advance science without us, and an inability to look past certain ethical points to look at larger ethical considerations (i.e. they wouldn't necessarily even object on moral grounds if they looked at the whole picture objectively instead of ideologically).

 

This is just rank ignorance. You don't even bother to state the ethical arguments here or even present this so called larger ethical consideration. You also fail to show that refusing to generally provide federal funds for embryonic stem cell research hinders our ability to compete. For all this talk about the beauty of empiricism, a lot of people in this thread feel comfortable talking out of their asses when it suits their political predisposition. I mean, Jesus. Pangloss, did you even read that last sentence? "[O]bjectively instead of ideologically?" Without support you've just reduced both terms to meaningless approbrium.

 

I disagree with Bud's point about the south still recovering from the civil war, etc. You'd be hard pressed to find a more ignorant fool than a yankee who's confident in his knowledge that liberalism equals righteousness and that the northeast is the center of the civilized world. Typical blue-state foolishness. The kind of thinking that generates more failed Democratic candidates. You need to move past that kind of nonsense.

 

Blue county "pragmatism" hasn't done much better in recent years.

 

The problem we have right now in this country isn't the far right. It's the confluence of power in both extremes, to the detriment of the center. Our inability to compromise will, some day (hopefully not in my lifetime), be the death of this nation.

 

And how so? When abolitionism was an extremist position, did it kill this nation? What about the notion that there should be a government safety net? Or that federal taxes should capped at 40% instead of 70%? Or that we should have a standing army, or that separate but equal is never acceptable? Nothing sickens me more than the faux relativism of the center-left; simply because they're too chicken or ignorant to admit their own principles everyone else should abandon theirs.

 

If you're going to argue something is "bad," tell us where you lie ethically and how you view reality. And do us all a favor and at least try to honestly represent the other side's views.

 

Rev Prez