PDA

View Full Version : Bravo to Bush for Stem-Cell Veto



MasterChief
07-23-2006, 11:03 PM
:tongout: Bravo to Bush for Stem-Cell Veto


“If this bill would have become law, American taxpayers would, for the first time in our history, be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos. And I’m not going to allow it.”

With those words last Wednesday, President Bush cast the first veto of his presidency, sending back to Congress the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which would have provided federal tax dollars to researchers who kill human embryos taken from in vitro fertilization clinics in order to extract their stem cell. Later that day, the House fell 51 votes short of overriding the President’s veto.

Bush deserves support and applause for his courageous defense of a fundamental principle. At a White House veto ceremony he gathered around him people who had benefited from therapies based on adult stem cells and “snowflake” babies born after families adopted frozen embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics.

“We must also remember that embryonic stem cells come from human embryos that are destroyed for their cells,” said Bush. “Each of these human embryos is a unique human life with inherent dignity and matchless value. We see that value in the children who are with us today. Each of these children began his or her life as a frozen embryo that was created for in vitro fertilization, but remained unused after the fertility treatments were complete. Each of these children was adopted while still an embryo, and has been blessed with the chance to grow up in a loving family.”

“These boys and girls are not spare parts,” the President said.

I asked members of Congress last week if taxpayers should be forced to pay for the killing of embryos.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems to be that the crux of this argument is whether taxpayers should be funding the killing of embryos. Can you tell me why it should be this way? Why taxpayers should be forced to fund this?

Sen. Tom Harkin (D.-Iowa): Okay, I am opposed to the death penalty but my tax dollars are used to execute people. I am morally opposed to the death penalty. What’s the difference? I mean, I happen to be morally opposed to a lot of things that our government does in many ways. But we pay our taxes and, so, I don’t buy that argument. There’s a lot of things I am opposed to, but I pay my taxes and the government uses the money for it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How exactly did we end up at this juncture where the U.S. federal government is poised to compel taxpayers to fund the killing of embryos, and two, can you be consistently pro-life and support the kind of action that’s happening in the Senate?

Rep. Joseph Pitts (R.-Pa.): I think it’s difficult for someone that is pro-life to support. I see a major inconsistency here. If you want to know how we got here, my sense of it is that how we got this information creates a false sense of hope. It’s imperative that we get the real debate down on this. We know for a fact there are cures with adult stem-cell research and technologies and therapies. There are no [indiscernible] applications at this time with the embryonic stem-cell approach. So why should we spend money, scarce federal money, right now on some hope that we might achieve something and spend time and money on something that is morally objectionable to many people throughout this country?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How exactly did we end up at this juncture where the U.S. federal government is poised to compel taxpayers to fund the killing of embryos, and two, can you be consistently pro-life and support the kind of action that’s happening in the Senate?

Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.): It is simply morally wrong, as millions of pro-lifers agree as we do that life begins at conception, to fund this research that involves the destruction of a human embryo. I believe that historically, while Americans appear in most surveys to be evenly divided on the subject of abortion, 80% of Americans oppose the use of federal tax dollars to pay for abortion, and I believe that rightly understood that this debate when it properly focuses the attention of the American people on the facts that we are not asking, we’re not asking whether or not there should be stem cell research, we’re not even asking whether or not there should be embryonic stem-cell research. We’re simply asking who pays for it, and it is our belief that the American people understand asking billions of dollars from Americans who believe that life begins at conception to pay for the destruction of human embryos for research is morally wrong and the politics will take care of itself.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yesterday, on the Senate floor, you referred to an ideological group as the “theocracy” and said if they didn’t like stem cells, they just shouldn’t use it. But why should they have to pay for it through their tax dollars?

Sen. Charles Schumer (D.-N.Y.): The bottom line is here that this is about scientific progress and research, and we fund so many other different types of cures. This is a major cure, and we should move forward on scientific progress.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because this is such a controversial subject, that people don’t agree with it, why should their tax dollars be used to fund the killing of these embryos?

Sen. Gordon Smith (R.-Ore.): I mean, I don’t agree with many ways in which my tax dollars are spent.

Does that make it okay?

Smith: But our process is that we’re a nation of law, and we have a way of making laws. And we the people, the majority, ultimately rule, and we are bound to obey the law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should the federal government compel taxpayers to fund the killing of embryos?

Rep. Dave Weldon (R.-Fla.) [who is a physician]: Absolutely not. It’s morally and ethically wrong. It’s also a really bad use of taxpayer dollars. Embryonic stem cells will probably never be shown to be successful in any clinical treatments because the very thing that makes them attractive for bench researchers to use them, the fact that they grow robustly, makes them genetically unstable in animal models. They form tumors, and it’s a grandiose waste of money, in my opinion, to elevate embryonic stem cells above adult stem cells for human clinical research. Now, you can learn a lot of science by studying embryonic stem cells, but you can do that with animal models. You don’t have to use human embryos to do that.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is it imperative that taxpayers are going to be forced [to support] what many consider to be the killing of embryos?

Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.): Why are taxpayers going to be forced to support the embryonic stem-cell research? Well, there are many taxpayers that disagree with many governmental policies. You can start with the war in Iraq or you could take Amtrak, but we live in a society where the majority rules and we have very, very powerful public support and congressional support and time is on our side in embryonic stem-cell research. It is going to happen. And the sooner it happens the better, and I think President Bush will be applauded and will have a legacy if he is willing to reexamine his thinking on the subject and to agree with the hope that’s been so fervently expressed here routinely by the senators at this podium.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah): If I could just add to that. As a senator who believes that being pro-life is helping the living as well as the unborn, I can’t see for the life of me how we could justify 7,000-20,000 in vitro fertilized eggs being discarded as hospital waste every year as a justifiable thing. Why wouldn’t we use those eggs rather than having them become hospital waste and die? Why don’t we use them for the benefit of mankind, especially for our young children who have these dreaded diseases and have a lifetime ahead of them full of pain, distress and suffering? To me, I don’t think it’s pro-life to just accept that disposal of those 7,000-20,000 in vitro fertilized eggs and not doing everything we possibly can for people who are ill.

Damocles
07-23-2006, 11:18 PM
Well, he certainly didn't do it to get his poll numbers higher. I'll say this for Bush, he's consistent.

Beefy
07-24-2006, 12:11 AM
People have a misconception about this issue. They think that the veto means that stem cell research cannot go on. The reality is that federal funding of stem cell research was vetoed, and I agree with it.

All the crybabies who talki about corporate welfare should be bitching about Federally funded SCR. Its corporate welfare at its most raw. The federal government absorbing the costs of this research so the Pharm companies can reap the rewards?

Lets hear it.

Adam Weinberg
07-24-2006, 05:05 AM
I tend to agree that it is corporate welfare, but politically, I err on the side of wanting to know the number of the appropriation in dollars to decide whether I would have voted for it or not.

In principle, yes, I'm against any subsidies to industries. But, we do have a whole bunch of public ventures financed when the private sector isn't touching the matter.

If the data would suggest that ESCR is so new and out there that it's the genetic equivalent of putting a man on the moon and nobody is going to do it, that it requires the government's approval obviously to utilize the embryos and the amount of money is small enough, I would just as soon approve it than deny it.

Adam Weinberg
07-24-2006, 05:11 AM
It's one of those things that's sort of border-line-ish.

As an artist, I'm firmly opposed to subsidies and tax-credits for the arts, because I would rather cut taxes for all industries than make some work while others get political favors.

At the same time, certain examples of this are too small to worry about. Like the 20 million dollars they spent on the National Endowment for the Arts this year. It's not worth fighting over.

That's not even the value of the tax credits on one big blockbuster Hollywood show.

maineman
07-24-2006, 05:57 AM
Hey masterchief...I thought you were an electronics technician, not a boatswain's mate. Why the crossed anchors? Where's the helium atom?

Damocles
07-24-2006, 06:46 AM
Hey masterchief...I thought you were an electronics technician, not a boatswain's mate. Why the crossed anchors? Where's the helium atom?

LOL. I think he just found any Master Chief icon to add as an avatar there maineman...

maineman
07-24-2006, 06:49 AM
I think he isn't really a master chief damo.... lol

Damocles
07-24-2006, 06:58 AM
I think he isn't really a master chief damo.... lol

Meh... I can't know. At least he got the rank right.

maineman
07-24-2006, 07:23 AM
he sure didn't know anything about electronics for an E9 ET....I KNOW that

TheDanold
07-24-2006, 07:39 AM
he sure didn't know anything about electronics for an E9 ET....I KNOW that
Yeah, he'll need a good 20000 posts on a politics forum before he really masters your level of electronics knowledge! ROFL

maineman
07-24-2006, 07:43 AM
my knowledge of navy electronics comes from a career of using them...

just like your knowledge of cooking big macs comes from your professional experience.

LadyT
07-24-2006, 08:01 AM
I fully support federally funded research for embryonic stem cell research. This is something we can all benefit from and it ideally in a few years it will save lives and perhaps reverse the effects of degenerative diseases. Why is it cons are so willing to protect us only militarily, what about the health threats? I'd definitely prefer my federal tax monies be spent on this rather than rebuilding Iraq.

maineman
07-24-2006, 08:03 AM
bravo Lady T...I concur wholeheartedly

LadyT
07-24-2006, 08:13 AM
I think the solution is to cut back on what I call "not $hit sherlock" studies. I've seen grants that confirm the obvious: high sugar diets in children leads to obesity. Stuff like that can get scrubbed, but degenerative neurological diseases hinder more lives than terrorism has in the US.

Jarod
07-24-2006, 10:19 AM
Americans are such sheep, these unwanted embryos are destroyed everyday...

Because this is happening anyway why not make some good out of it... What BUSH did is not prohibiting a single embryo from being destroyed, its just preventing good from comming out of the destruction.

If you dont like the destruction of the embryos call for a law against that....

What fucking sheeple. If we fund NASA because of the advances we can get from space travel, its a no brainer that stem cell research should be funded!

Jarod
07-24-2006, 10:21 AM
Well, he certainly didn't do it to get his poll numbers higher. I'll say this for Bush, he's consistent.


He did it to keep his numbers up with the WHACKO right! Its been his stragety all along... keep the WHACKOS enthused and they will come out and vote!

Damocles
07-24-2006, 10:23 AM
Americans are such sheep, these unwanted embryos are destroyed everyday...

Because this is happening anyway why not make some good out of it... What BUSH did is not prohibiting a single embryo from being destroyed, its just preventing good from comming out of the destruction.


You act like he made it illegal. He didn't. He just made it so the Feds don't donate money to it. California does, other funding can be found elsewhere.



If you dont like the destruction of the embryos call for a law against that....

What fucking sheeple. If we fund NASA because of the advances we can get from space travel, its a no brainer that stem cell research should be funded!
I agree. Make a law against creation of embryos solely for destruction and research. Then fund ethical programs that take embryos slated for destruction and use them for research. Also heavily fund Umbilical lines and adult research. Machine-gun it...

Jarod
07-24-2006, 10:27 AM
You act like he made it illegal. He didn't. He just made it so the Feds don't donate money to it. California does, other funding can be found elsewhere.


I agree. Make a law against creation of embryos solely for destruction and research. Then fund ethical programs that take embryos slated for destruction and use them for research. Also heavily fund Umbilical lines and adult research. Machine-gun it...



NO, its just a matter of fact that this research will not occure unless a government helps fund it, like they do with other major health issues. California, were it an independent nation, would likely be in the G8!

Damocles
07-24-2006, 10:28 AM
NO, its just a matter of fact that this research will not occure unless a government helps fund it, like they do with other major health issues. California, were it an independent nation, would likely be in the G8!

You're noeing me like you didn't read the second part of the post. It was close to being overturned as well. Real close. In another two years we'll have our funding for this research.

Jarod
07-24-2006, 10:32 AM
You're noeing me like you didn't read the second part of the post. It was close to being overturned as well. Real close. In another two years we'll have our funding for this research.


Good, in untill then Bush and the SOCIAL RIGHT have lots of sick an dying people to account for.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-24-2006, 10:46 AM
Good, in untill then Bush and the SOCIAL RIGHT have lots of sick an dying people to account for.

OMG... Puleeze? WHAT sick and dying people could have been saved through federal funding of embryonic stem cell research? Please tell us!

Jarod
07-24-2006, 10:52 AM
OMG... Puleeze? WHAT sick and dying people could have been saved through federal funding of embryonic stem cell research? Please tell us!



We dont know yet, and I guess we never will... But most respected in the field say untold numbers of sick and dying would likely find a solution to the ailments that afflict them.

Thats like saying, "Puleeze? WHAT benefits could have been found through federal funding of NASA!" Dont be so obtuse.

TheDanold
07-24-2006, 11:13 AM
We dont know yet, and I guess we never will... But most respected in the field say untold numbers of sick and dying would likely find a solution to the ailments that afflict them.

Thats like saying, "Puleeze? WHAT benefits could have been found through federal funding of NASA!" Dont be so obtuse.
I don't have anything against the research, but I object to government funding it. Remember that with government doing less, you have less taxes and more money that people can use for funding research. The facts bear that out on drug research for example:

"America is outspending Europe on medical research and development and benefiting from that. One way of measuring that is by counting the number of things called new molecular entities that have been produced. From 1993 to 1997, Europe developed 81 NMEs to America's 48; in 1998 to 2002, America produced 85 NMEs to Europe's 44."
America has half the population of Europe and developed almost double the amount of discoveries in drugs as left-wing Europe did.

"Generic drugs are cheap in America and not so cheap in Europe"

"medicine costs make up only about one-tenth of overall health care spending. Little of the increases in year to year spending on prescriptions from increases in the prices patients pay; most of it comes from increases in how much medicine Americans are getting"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/16/opinion/meyer/main674561.shtml

robdastud
07-24-2006, 11:13 AM
OMG... Puleeze? WHAT sick and dying people could have been saved through federal funding of embryonic stem cell research? Please tell us!


are you for real?? we don't know yet b/c treatments that would be available aren't yet.

honorknght
07-24-2006, 11:16 AM
are you for real?? we don't know yet b/c treatments that would be available aren't yet.
You're again assuming that treatments actually would come out of it that WOULD NOT come out of other stem cell research.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-24-2006, 11:18 AM
We dont know yet, and I guess we never will... But most respected in the field say untold numbers of sick and dying would likely find a solution to the ailments that afflict them.

Thats like saying, "Puleeze? WHAT benefits could have been found through federal funding of NASA!" Dont be so obtuse.

No, it's more like saying... some pinheads said if we get naked and dance in the rain, we'll never die... no telling how many lives could be saved if it weren't for uptight religious righties who don't want to see us naked!

You are making a false claim, one that is not substantiated at all, and you expect people to just accept your theories and assume them to be factual. Most credible researchers I've heard speak on the topic, say there have been some major breakthroughs with adult and core blood stem cells, and that is where cures and benefits are being realized, not through the embyonic stem cells. So, let's be honest about it, and stop trying to be over-dramatic with the claims here.

Jarod
07-24-2006, 11:21 AM
No, it's more like saying... some pinheads said if we get naked and dance in the rain, we'll never die... no telling how many lives could be saved if it weren't for uptight religious righties who don't want to see us naked!

You are making a false claim, one that is not substantiated at all, and you expect people to just accept your theories and assume them to be factual. Most credible researchers I've heard speak on the topic, say there have been some major breakthroughs with adult and core blood stem cells, and that is where cures and benefits are being realized, not through the embyonic stem cells. So, let's be honest about it, and stop trying to be over-dramatic with the claims here.


No, because no renound experts have said that getting naked and dancing in the rain will make it so you will never die. The fact is that Bush's reason will not save anyone!

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-24-2006, 11:29 AM
No, because no renound experts have said that getting naked and dancing in the rain will make it so you will never die. The fact is that Bush's reason will not save anyone!


Well... the truth of the matter is, no renowned experts have given any guarantee that embryonic stem cell research would provide a cure for anything.

So, it's the same thing, essentially.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-24-2006, 11:42 AM
Look, Jarod... here is what you posted:

untill then Bush and the SOCIAL RIGHT have lots of sick an dying people to account for

How is Bush and the social right responsible for the sick and dying who aren't guaranteed any sort of cure through federal funding of embryonic stem cells? It's just a flat out FALSE CLAIM. You are trying to pretend that Bush has blocked a certain cure for the sick and dying, and that's just not the case. I'm fine with having an honest debate and dialogue about SCR, but when your side starts flinging out these wild and false claims to garner sympathy, it's just pathetic and intellectually dishonest.

Jarod
07-24-2006, 12:24 PM
Well... the truth of the matter is, no renowned experts have given any guarantee that embryonic stem cell research would provide a cure for anything.

So, it's the same thing, essentially.


Nuthing is guaranteed... you can bury your head in the sand if you want to stick with the crazy right on this issue, but you are clearly not being reasonable.

LadyT
07-24-2006, 12:24 PM
You're again assuming that treatments actually would come out of it that WOULD NOT come out of other stem cell research.


No he's not. He's assuming the possibility for life changing research can emerge from both. I didn't see advocate stopping one for of research vs another.

Jarod
07-24-2006, 12:33 PM
No he's not. He's assuming the possibility for life changing research can emerge from both. I didn't see advocate stopping one for of research vs another.



I think he knew that, just being obtuse.

Care4all
07-24-2006, 02:02 PM
Tax money is taken from us to go to the killing of other human beings, as with what is going on in Iraq.

These embryos were sceduled to be incinerated, killed.

If I were the embryo and I somehow ...;)....had the choice of being killed off just because my parents didn't want to have anymore children, or being killed in a manner that would someday save many lives, I'd much rather be killed off via embryonic research vs being killed in an incinerator..burnt alive....just because mom and dad had their needs filled already....

Outside of the body, the embryo is as good as dead, even before they decide to incinerate it.

Parents using fertility methods have to make a choice, as to what to do with the rest of their offspring, the rest of their fertilized embryos....parents have to sign a release paper to get them destroyed right now.

These parents would have had a choice of incinerating (or some other method to destroy) them, or to allow these embryos to go towards research...some parents might find incinerating them more ethical, some may find the research route more ethical....but ultimately, no funded research would have been done on these embryos without their parents consent to do such.

These are humans and the parents must give permission to how their excess offspring will be disposed of....whether they want their excess embryos to be disposed of, or allow them to be available for adoption by others.

The whole practice seems wrong...kind of barbaric to me, especially if you do believe that life begins at conception....

But even as a pro lifer, I tend to believe that a life worth keeping begins once it is attached to the uterus....it MUST be attached to the uterus in order for a woman to be "pregnant" with child.....in order for any child to survive and continue living....it must be in the womb and growing....at least at this time in our lives.

I think I support using these embryos, destined for death, for stem cell research....because I believe it will save alot more lives than they would if they were to be released to the normal route of destruction.

care

care

Jarod
07-24-2006, 02:05 PM
Tax money is taken from us to go to the killing of other human beings, as with what is going on in Iraq.

These embryos were sceduled to be incinerated, killed.

If I were the embryo and I somehow ...;)....had the choice of being killed off just because my parents didn't want to have anymore children, or being killed in a manner that would someday save many lives, I'd much rather be killed off via embryonic research vs being killed in an incinerator..burnt alive....just because mom and dad had their needs filled already....

Outside of the body, the embryo is as good as dead, even before they decide to incinerate it.

Parents using fertility methods have to make a choice, as to what to do with the rest of their offspring, the rest of their fertilized embryos....parents have to sign a release paper to get them destroyed right now.

These parents would have had a choice of incinerating (or some other method to destroy) them, or to allow these embryos to go towards research...some parents might find incinerating them more ethical, some may find the research route more ethical....but ultimately, no funded research would have been done on these embryos without their parents consent to do such.

These are humans and the parents must give permission to how their excess offspring will be disposed of....whether they want their excess embryos to be disposed of, or allow them to be available for adoption by others.

The whole practice seems wrong...kind of barbaric to me, especially if you do believe that life begins at conception....

But even as a pro lifer, I tend to believe that a life worth keeping begins once it is attached to the uterus....it MUST be attached to the uterus in order for a woman to be "pregnant" with child.....in order for any child to survive and continue living....it must be in the womb and growing....at least at this time in our lives.

I think I support using these embryos, destined for death, for stem cell research....because I believe it will save alot more lives than they would if they were to be released to the normal route of destruction.

care

care


Exactly, and bush is preventing that, in the name of some morality most Americans dont subscribe to....!

OrnotBitwise
07-25-2006, 11:00 AM
I think the solution is to cut back on what I call "not $hit sherlock" studies. I've seen grants that confirm the obvious: high sugar diets in children leads to obesity. Stuff like that can get scrubbed, but degenerative neurological diseases hinder more lives than terrorism has in the US.
I'm going to have to disagree with you, at least in principle.

It's all too easy for the press to misrepresent legitimate scientific studies as simplistic or stupid. Remember this rule of thumb: any appeal to "common sense" in the media is almost certainly really an appeal to superstition.

It seems obvious, doesn't it, that a diet high in sugar leads to obesity? It's exactly that sort of assumption, however, that any honest and methodical scientist can't make. That's the way science works.

Now, I *do* agree that there are priorities, especially in federal funding. I also agree that, as far as federal funding is concerned, stem cell research is probably one of the highest priorities we should have right now. The promise is enormous yet we know very little so far. At the same time the research is extremely expensive and difficult for private institutions to fund on their own.

LadyT
07-25-2006, 11:09 AM
I disagree Ornot, there are definitely no $hit sherlock studies and I'm in a 100% agreement with you that there are priorities. Federal funds to subsidize health threats is #1 on my list. Studies that merely confirm generally accepted scientific theories and facts that have already been established should not be federally funded. I wish I had the website, but I think if you saw the study I was referring to, you'd say, "No $hit Sherlock" too.