Bush vetoes embryonic stem-cell bill

[PhDP]

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/19/stemcells.veto/index.html

 

Another chapter of the GOP war on science ?

 

I'm curious, did he ever admit his motives were religious ? He says it's about morality and "being conscious", but that's a diversion, without his religious beliefs, he wouldn't see those cells as "living beings".

[Pangloss]

Dang, Phil, you beat me to it.

 

This phrase is clearly in error:

Another chapter of the GOP war on science ?

 

In fact one of the things that was so interesting about this bill is that it enjoyed such bi-partisan support. Some of the Republican party's most stalwart pro-life Senators voted for this bill, including Bill Frist and Orin Hatch, and even presumed presidential candidate John McCain, who has been making great efforts to win over the religious right recently, voted for it.

 

Even more interesting, President Bush said repeatedly that he wanted to find out what the science was and what the American people thought. Well, both of those things have happened, and nearly everyone of consequence has come around on this issue -- except President Bush.

 

Which pretty much leaves this entirely in the realm of one man's personal opinion about whether or not this is murder. I guess I can respect that, to a certain extent, and I understand that we put these people in office to govern based on their own views. But they're also supposed to represent our views, and that clearly is not happening here.

 

The good news out of all of this is that it's clearly not a long-term resolution. The moment the next president steps into the White House, the ban will be effectively over. The only real question is whether or not that will come too late for researchers reliant upon American governmental funding.

[Saryctos]

I wonder what the bill said verbatim, because I don't see why Bush would veto the ability to choose that your embryos be donated to research rather than simply destroyed. This seems like a very lack luster veto for the only one he's done =/

[Pangloss]

From their perspective, this is the same thing. After all, all abortions are performed at parental behest.

 

But I do think you're on the right general track. IMO the best way to approach this issue with fundamentalists is to forget about the benefits issue entirely, and focus on the differences between this and abortion. If you focus on benefits, they're just going to sit behind a the "two wrongs don't make a right" wall and ignore it, or even worse shove a "Hitler experimented on the Jews, too" kind of argument.

 

If we can somehow drive a perception wedge between "abortion" and "embryos" in even far-right people's minds, then the issue could be won.

 

Just some random mussings.

[JHAQ]

Bush from all perspectives is a national disaster . How can one equate a non sentient bunch of cells w/o any capacity for anticipatory foreknowledge of its planned termination with sentient suffering persons . It just goes to show the absurdity of almost anything emanating from a religious point of view ,

[Saryctos]

How can one equate a non sentient bunch of cells w/o any capacity for anticipatory foreknowledge of its planned termination with sentient suffering persons .

 

From that point of view the mentally ill or even to some extent autistic fill the same catagory. and they recently(2001?) recieved protection from the death penalty in Texas, and that seemed to go over well with most.

 

 

The religious demenor* of Bush's views only stem from the way in which his views took root. To call all views that are equivalent to those of religion X to be created from said religion denies the existance personal thought through assossiation.

[Mokele]

In fact one of the things that was so interesting about this bill is that it enjoyed such bi-partisan support. Some of the Republican party's most stalwart pro-life Senators voted for this bill, including Bill Frist and Orin Hatch, and even presumed presidential candidate John McCain, who has been making great efforts to win over the religious right recently, voted for it.

 

Even more interesting, President Bush said repeatedly that he wanted to find out what the science was and what the American people thought. Well, both of those things have happened, and nearly everyone of consequence has come around on this issue -- except President Bush.

 

Do you know if there's enough support in Congress for this bill for them to override the veto?

 

Mokele

[ecoli]

Do you know if there's enough support in Congress for this bill for them to override the veto?

 

Mokele

 

They would need 2/3 to pass, right? That's got to be tough.

 

I'm most upset that Bush is using veto powers due to his own backwards set of morality. He'd let countless people die of disease before allowing us to 'kill' a cell aggregate.

 

This is what happens when we don't educate people about science, I suppose.

[Mokele]

They would need 2/3 to pass, right? That's got to be tough.

 

Not if it's bipartisan enough. I mean, think about it, 67%-50% is only 17%, only 1/6th of the members of each house would have to change their votes, and that's if the bill just squeaked by.

 

From what I found online, the vote in the senate was 63-37, meaning with only 4 more votes for it, it'd be veto-proof. It was 238 - 192 in the House, so they only need 290 votes, an increase of 54. That'd probably be harder. However, from what I'm seeing online, a slight majority favor full federal funding, and the more likely someone is to follow this issue, the more likely they are to be favorable. Given that the HR is up for election soon, that could create some political pressure.

 

Mokele

[Karnage]

I'm most upset that Bush is using veto powers due to his own backwards set of morality. He'd let countless people die of disease before allowing us to 'kill' a cell aggregate.

 

This is what happens when we don't educate people about science' date=' I suppose.[/quote']

 

 

How I agree with you 100%. I find it absolutely absurd to veto stem cell research that could save billions. I mean, sure it involves a bit of sacrifice, but that is a principle that goes for many things. Sometimes you need to sacrifice to allow for the better. You gotta sacrifice those poor, cute mice to further our scientific knowledge. I mean, Bush is willing to sacrifice people for some war in Iraq when he cannot sacrifice embryos for a wondrous technology. What's his problem?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This is what happens when we don't educate people about science, I suppose.

No, it's what happens when politicians pander to certain groups of people.

[Jim]

No, it's what happens when politicians pander to certain groups of people.

 

Things like this make me actually hope for a democrat president next time around. It would be such a relief to carp about pandering in the other direction.

[PhDP]

Pangloss,

 

I did not find all the information about the senate vote. But the "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005" was supported by 92% of Democrats and only 21% of Republicans. It's still less boring than in a British parliamentary system, still, the division is clear. There's no doubt some democrats are opposing it, but the most vigorous opposition has come from republicans. I think it's fair to say this is part of a cultural conflict between the religious right and the scientific community.

 

I guess I can respect that, to a certain extent, and I understand that we put these people in office to govern based on their own views.

 

I have no idea what's the religion of my prime minister (or any of his predecessors), he might be playing with black magic and sacrifices for all I know. Isn't it a problem when the president of a country is passing or blocking laws because of religion ? China is investing a lot in stem cells, it's certainly not reasonable for the US to slow the development of such a dynamic and promising research area.

 

Also, despite the fact that I really like the American system and wish we would have a similar system, I fail to understand why the executive branch can veto the legislative branch on such issue.

[Pangloss]

I suppose you have a point there; I was wrong to declare your assessment false. I do think the bipartisanship on this particular bill was more than we've seen in the past, but of course if it was really all that "bipartisan" then it would obviously be veto-proof.

[ecoli]

No, it's what happens when politicians pander to certain groups of people.

 

I mean to say, I doubt the that president or the group he's pandering to, knows what a stem cell is.

[bascule]

OMG!

 

Bush vetoed something!

[bascule]

Oh, and let me add:

 

I'm glad we have a moralistic, evangelical President who can save those poor, dead babies' stem cells from helping the maimed and dying. Those aborted fetuses should go into an incinerator where they belong! No one should profit off of the abortion murder factory, they should suffer with their horrible, debilitating diseases!

[CPL.Luke]

reddaiah check out the introduce yourself thread to introduce youself, otherwise welcome to the forums!

 

I agree with pangloss that the best way to beat the religious right on this issue is to sepperate it from abortion.

 

One interesting parellel on this issue occured to me today, In the middle ages doctors faced similar opposition over the use of corpses as cadavers for teaching aids and research purposes. People found it to be morally unthinkable to open a dead body. After the benefits of the research (that was carried out albeit illegally) started to trickle in the ban was lifted in most parts of the world. So maybe all we need is to start seeing the benefits of stem cell research trickle in from europe and china for the US to switch.

 

Be careful how you rank your morals though, using dead things for research is one thing but "sacrificing" a few for the good of the many has been used to justify the actions of a few notable historical figures, namely

 

Chairman Mao

Stalin

Hitler

 

and on the science side there was a nazi scientist that did alot of brilliant work that eventually led to the creation of medical procedures in the event of hypothermia. However on the way there he killed a few dozen jews, heck they were on their way to the gas chamber anyway

[Nevermore]

and on the science side there was a nazi scientist that did alot of brilliant work that eventually led to the creation of medical procedures in the event of hypothermia. However on the way there he killed a few dozen jews, heck they were on their way to the gas chamber anyway

Playing the hitler card should be illegal.

I'm glad we have a moralistic, evangelical President who can save those poor, dead babies' stem cells from helping the maimed and dying. Those aborted fetuses should go into an incinerator where they belong! No one should profit off of the abortion murder factory, they should suffer with their horrible, debilitating diseases!

He's not doing it to save the embryos. Bush believes that people with terminal diseases have them as a punishment from god. He's not trying to help zygotes, he's trying to punish the sinful.

[Skye]

If we can somehow drive a perception wedge between "abortion" and "embryos" in even far-right people's minds, then the issue could be won.

I don't think of this as akin to abortion anyway. It's much more similar to whether parents have the ability to consent on behalf of their child to organ donation. The embryo or child is going to die in either case, that's not up to the parents.

[CPL.Luke]

Nevermore don't be to quick to forget your history, there is a reason why those names conger up such fear and hatred. Ignoring the obvious parellels between the past and present will very soon have you repeating the same mistake.

[Sisyphus]

Obvious parallels? So it starts with harmless medical research, and then... we invade Poland?

[JC1]

for those who said Bush is a hypocrite for sacrificing american's lives to die in the front line of battle over seas and trying to save the fetuses; i want you to realize the difference - those men and women had a choice. they signed a contract to be part of the war and to obtain world peace. Those babies didn't have a choice to be killed by their own mothers or doctors and nurses. when a doctor injects a needle or vaccum into the mother's womb to annihilate that embryo, they do try to defend themselves. they understand the logic of flight and fight, even if they are only a few tiny cells big.

so that being said, if you don't support the war, tell those people to stay home and not sign up for military duty.

[Sisyphus]

for those who said Bush is a hypocrite for sacrificing american's lives to die in the front line of battle over seas and trying to save the fetuses; i want you to realize the difference - those men and women had a choice. they signed a contract to be part of the war and to obtain world peace. Those babies didn't have a choice to be killed by their own mothers or doctors and nurses. when a doctor injects a needle or vaccum into the mother's womb to annihilate that embryo' date=' they do try to defend themselves. they understand the logic of flight and fight, even if they are only a few tiny cells big.

so that being said, if you don't support the war, tell those people to stay home and not sign up for military duty.[/quote']

 

This isn't about abortion, it's about stem cell research.

[Pangloss]

I kinda mentioned this on page one, but just to expand on my thoughts a bit, I think we (those of us in favor of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research) can be philosophical and optimistic about this defeat.

 

- Public opinion is clearly moving in the right direction

- It's pretty obvious that the next president will approve a similar bill, whether Democrat or Republican (every major presidential candidate is in favor)

- Other nations, and individual American states, as well as corporations, are taking up some of the slack in the meantime, maintaining research momentum and focus

 

It's important to bear in mind that this is how democracy works. A sizable portion of American citizens are opposed to this issue. It's not our way to bludgeon them into cooperation, with unpopular laws or controversial court decisions. Our way, our preferred way, is to win over hearts and minds through public discourse, education and debate.

 

Simply put, we're on the right path, and it's working. I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's better this way, but I have no trouble believing that this is going to happen, and in the big picture, I'm not sure that it matters so much when this happens; what matters more is how it happens.

 

Put another way, I'd rather have this pass WITH the support of the overwhelming majority of Americans, than to have to pass against popular opinion and end up with controversy and division hovering over the whole issue in perpetuity. I don't want it to pass tomorrow, I want it to pass with everyone behind it.

 

That's democracy.