Posted on 07/19/2006 11:14:14 AM PDT by Lunatic Fringe
WASHINGTON (AP) President Bush has issued the first veto of his presidency, rejecting a bill to expand federal research on stem cells obtained from embryos.
That's laughable, if you think ESCR is moral.
Your "religion" is "ruling" your posts. Embryonic stem cell research has only yield tumors. Adult stem cell research yields cures. There is no industry interest in privately funding of embryonic stem cell research because it shows little hope of a return on investment. And industry, which answers to stockholders, isn't interested in promoting an excuse for infantcide in exchange for money that could be spent on potentially profitable research.
And apparently Bush isn't interested in funding your "religion" with taxpayer money either.
Hurray!!
This bill is entirely symbolic, as is most of the garbage going on in Congress before the elections. GWB is right on this one. Most of the public is sadly misinformed on this one because it is a proxy for the abortion issue.
This kills Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. It does not outlaw embryonic stem cell research. The veto is entirely consistent with the President's message as delivered shortly before WTC911.
I don't know, is it? You're not being very clear. At what later stage? What exactly are you splitting off?
Why do you say it is not moral (and I would appreciate an actual answer rather than a derisive laugh)? I truly do not know enough to be offended, I guess.
Ummm.. this is simple... because private funding rarely funds advanced research when there is no profitable product in the near (10-15 year) future...
Did you see any companies funding adult stem cell research some 40+ years ago when the field was founded? Embryonic stem cells were isolated only in 1998 - it is a very new field.
Last year, the federal government provided $38 million in embryonic stem cell research funds. The NIH ALONE provided $200 million for adult stem cell research.
Maybe, just maybe, there is a connection between how long the research has been going on, how much money it gets, and how useful it is.
If research is always expected to pay off quickly, we'd still be debating whether or not man could fly.
Face it - this is a moral argument ONLY. It is moral to prevent the purposeful creation and destruction of human life in the name of scientific research. That doesn't mean that research wouldn't lead anywhere.
It's absolutely the right thing. Human beings cannot become a legal commodity.
The Pres is acting just as he did on this issue in 2001. There is no change.
Perhaps I misunderstood. Are you against abortion for any reason or not?
If your answer is that we do not have a human life, suppose at some point in the future we develop the technology to allow that cell to develop into a human being? Suppose we develop the technology to allow an adult stem cell to develop into a human being? Will adult stem cells be human beings then, but not now? Will they only be human beings when we make a decision to let them grow? And if they only become humans when we decide to let them grow, if we change our mind before we do anything, have we killed them?
There seem to be a lot of difficult questions.
Nonsense like this veto is why I cringe to be associated with the Jerry Falwell wing of the Republican party. Sad to see Bush pandering to them.
Praise the Lord indeed! Pro-life bump.
Ethics over science.
I corrected your statement. Just like the scene from 'Jurassic Park'. Scientists tend to get so involved with understanding whether they CAN do something, they don't stop to ask whether the SHOULD do it.
Is it ethical to pull the plug on a comatose patient just to have the heart for a transplant operation? I don't think I would want to receive a heart under that circumstance.
maria, I don't have the complete list, but I'm sure it's available.
Ohio is a very pro-life, moral state. I'm pleased that our Senators chose to represent US..........at least this time.
"....the ad campaign is meant to complement the organization's ongoing defense of reproductive rights in the courts. "The Constitution guarantees our right to pursuit of happiness," said Young. "The right to have sex falls within this guarantee. Legislatures have no authority to restrict it by imposing conditions on medical remedies for unwanted pregnancies resulting from the enjoyment of this fundamental right."
You know what's funny?
I've ripped the President harshly on his attitude and actions re: amnesty. Essentially divorcing myself from him on it.
Yet according to some poster up there everyone applauding this action is a "Bushbot".
It couldn't possibly be "maybe" people just believe this was the RIGHT thing to do from a conservative AND ethical standpoint. And they recognize the weight of what he has done by attaching his first VETO to this piece of legislation, and that perhaps people can respect that, even those that have been otherwise angry with him of late?
Last I checked, he didn't ban embryonic research. So all of their sputtering and outrage stems down to, what? Outrage he didn't spend money? Interesting position for a "conservative" to take.
I can understand outrage that he doesn't VETO spent money on other things, like the Highway Bill. That would at least make sense. But for someone to complain about the government expenditures to suddenly turn around and compain the government isn't spending enough money..based on promises no less, well, that isn't consistent with prior statements now is it?
Last I checked their support for embryonic stem cells was largely a faith based position. Yet they mock people who's faith stands in opposition? Sorry, they may have a blind spot to their professed faith, but religion isn't confined to Christinaity alone. they are evidence of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.