Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/19/stemcells.veto/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI CS/07/19/stemcells.veto/index.html</a> (Curious, there was a Stem Cell thread but it disappeared. No reason for that to happen.) Well, Bush decided to poke another eye of the electorate today and vetoed the Stem Cell bill that had the support of both houses. His first veto, and he uses it so the blind, paralyzed, and other disease afflicted people will continue to suffer with their problems. Playing to the lowest common denominator, which is what he does best, Bush's people gathered up some children who were born from embryos to make his announcement in front of them. From the article: "The measure, which the House of Representatives passed 238-194 in May, allows couples who have had embryos frozen for fertility treatments to donate them to researchers rather than let them be destroyed." So these embryos would be destroyed, but instead of allowing their use for medical research, Bush promotes the lie that using them for research would be killing a life. Incredibly dishonest, but hey, what's new. More: "Scientists believe stem cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat afflictions such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, strokes and burns." "Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a staunch opponent of abortion, said the bill is promotes life by encouraging research. "I believe we are aiding the living, which is one of the most pro-life positions you can take," Hatch said." So, the President of the United States gives a big middle finger to those who can least afford it. If he wants his party to really get slaughtered this November, why doesn't he just say so instead of literally harming millions of the citizens he is supposed to protect?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper It would be dandy if all issues were black and white but...they ain't. I have a personal interest here as my wife and I do have 3 frozen embryos in storage. Our daughter, Grace, is a product of in vitro. She was one of several embryos who was given a chance to live...and did. When we made the decision to freeze three viable embryos we did so not knowing if Grace was going to join us. We figured if it all worked out we could donate the remaining embryos if we chose not to try and have more children. So, now Grace is here and we have talked to some extent about what we are going to do. Disposing of the embryos seems more complicated to us now since Grace was a product of them. To try and go through in vitro again would cost us a significant amount of money. To donate to science seems more complicated now. So, in our house, where we actually have embryos in frozen limbo...the topic is complex. I don't think it is completely wrong that Bush vetoed the bill nor do I think it is completely right. But to just blow this off as the President give the people the bird is to simplify what has very heave morale, personal and ethical ramifications.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Sorry for the spelling, I was a tad bit emotional when writing that post.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I'm confused. Would you rather destroy them than let them be used for research?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm confused too. We both are. They aren't kids...and we know that...but it almost feels like asking, "do you want to kill your kid or just send him to a North Korean "reasearch lab". Frankly, neither option comforts us right now. Therein lies our own morale dilemma.
Originally Posted By Shooba re: post 2, from what I read in post 1 the measure would have given you the choice of whether to donate the embryos or not. You have valid reasons for making the choice not to allow your frozen embryos to be used, but Bush has taken away your right to choose.
Originally Posted By jonvn They are going to be destroyed ANYWAY. This is not taking ones that people are going to keep around, they are going to be incinerated. They aren't being donated, and there aren't enough people to take them even if they were to be donated. They are going to be made into ash. These aren't children. These aren't children who are even ever going to be. They are a collection of cells destined for destruction. Their only possible use would be in helping find cures for myriad disease afflicting people on a daily basis. So, yes, it was bad for him to veto this, and when even Orin Hatch manages to figure it out, it's got to be a pretty clear cut case of what is right and what is wrong.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Bush may or may not be a moron. But I don't have huge problems with the veto. In cases where there is no consensus among the research community as to the ethics of a procedure, I think it is proper that the government decides that the research may continue but must do so without government funds. I feel the same way about research into genetic engineering, cloning, etc. There are just too many unanswered questions about the ethics of where we are heading.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>But here, you need to pove your point or be cast aside as a person with Bush hated disease who has lost all abilty to understand the real world.<< Says the person whose entire world view consists of "Liberals Bad!"
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Shooba, why did you just lie in the other post? YOu are doing EXACTLY what I said liberals were going to do regarding this veto even before the veto happened. Then you tell me my world view is wrong?
Originally Posted By tuknshak I agree with RoadTrip. Before our government puts money into research we should have all the facts. The government's money doesn't grow on trees...it comes from our tax dollars and I am not sure I agree with my tax dollars going to fund research that doesn't have solid evidence (pro or con) behind it.
Originally Posted By Shooba Sigh. I didn't lie. My understanding of the measure (which may be incorrect, I haven't read enough) is that Bush vetoed the ability of those people with embryos to choose whether to donate them for research or not. Wahoo described the difficulty of this personal choice, and seemed to imply that the measure would take away his ability to make the choice. At first glance, it seemed to me that the measure would still allow him his choice.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger Adult stem cells have been in use for over 40 years, and their only application seems to be in blood diseases. (Can anyone confirm this? This is the impression I get from the NIH's website.) Embryonic stem cells have only been usable for experiments since 1998. So declaring that "many" cures have come from adult stem cells, with 40 years of research (and only one apparent application) vs. none from 8 years of limited research on hESC, with hundreds or thousands of potential applications is pretty bogus.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>I am not sure I agree with my tax dollars going to fund research that doesn't have solid evidence (pro or con) behind it.<< If we don't allow this research, how will we ever know its effectiveness?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<YOu are doing EXACTLY what I said liberals were going to do regarding this veto even before the veto happened. >> Yes, but your statement was a lie also. I am a liberal. I did not react like you expected. Get over your garbage about how all liberals think alike. Since liberals don't take all of their views from two or three radio or TV commentators we actually have a pretty wide range of opinions.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy tuknshak is exactly correct. The private sector sure isn't putting any money into embryo stem cells. Why not?? They know it's a horrible investment. Otherwise the drug companies who do research would be putting private capital into embryo stem cells. Instead they put hundreds of millions into ADULT stem cells, the stem cells that have no moral problems as it turns out. Yet people are going to call Bush the guy who killed their sick cousin because he doesn't want to sign a bill that pours tons of taxpayer cash into a program that has proven to be unproven at best? I for one am glad he has a clear focus and is not bending to hysterical people who attempt to say he just stopped the cure for ( pick your favorite disease here )
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Sigh. I didn't lie.>> Shooba, I was just messing with ya. I know you didn't mean to lie. But this issue and other issues have a way of taking on false truths if not stopped right away. The original poster would be more than happy to let people think Bush made it illegal to solve deadly diseases and that he is a religious nut that is blind to science. Those tricks work on the left wing sites where guys like me are banned, but not here where there is an open exchange of views.
Originally Posted By Shooba Government should only invest in research that could save lives if it's a good investment? Why spend money to cure someone of cancer, if the cure costs more than their net worth to society, right? It's capitalism gone horribly wrong.
