AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bush vetos stem cell bill
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bush vetos stem cell bill

post #1 of 262
7/19/06 at 1:17pm
Thread Starter 
In secrecy so the 66% of Americans in favor of stem cell research don't find out how much of a fucking coward he is. America will become the laughing stock of the industialized world. Never mind that we throw out thousands of unfertalized eggs from fertility clinics that no one seems to be in an uproar over.

Quote:
Tony Snow: The president will, however, before he delivers remarks this afternoon, veto the Castle bill.

Here's how it works, because I know a lot of you have had questions. There will be no photographers, no ceremony. What the president will do is, in his office, he will sign a veto message, he will hand it to a clerk, who will convey it to a clerk of the House, and then you go through the formalities of announcing a message from the president, and at some point the House will vote on the veto.

Reporter: Is there a reason why he's not having photographers in, at least?

Tony Snow: Because he doesn't feel it's appropriate. He's signing a veto.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/...eto/index.html
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 262
7/19/06 at 1:29pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider
In secrecy

And yet...you know about it.

Reply
Reply
post #3 of 262
7/19/06 at 1:52pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider
In secrecy so the 66% of Americans in favor of stem cell research don't find out how much of a fucking coward he is. America will become the laughing stock of the industialized world. Never mind that we throw out thousands of unfertalized eggs from fertility clinics that no one seems to be in an uproar over.



http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/...eto/index.html

I don't think you even know what he vetoed, nor do you know what his position on stem cell research is.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #4 of 262
7/19/06 at 1:59pm
The left says using corn-based ethanol to fuel cars is bad policy and ethically wrong, because we're burning food when millions in the world go hungry.

That is called standing on principle.

Then the right says that killing human embryos for scientific purposes is bad policy and ethically wrong, because it leads us down a road of devaluing human lives in the course of scientific experimentation. Particularly since we've already seen how such experimentation can lead to an all out assault on human dignity.

This is denounced as cowardice.

Perhaps you should worry less about being laughed at and worry more about doing the right thing. The fact that some corn rots in the field doesn't mean the first argument mentioned is false.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #5 of 262
7/19/06 at 2:00pm
Hypocricy at the highest level.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 262
7/19/06 at 2:01pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Particularly since we've already seen how such experimentation can lead to an all out assault on human dignity.

Could you expand on this?
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #7 of 262
7/19/06 at 2:07pm
Quote:
Then the right says that killing human embryos for scientific purposes is bad policy and ethically wrong, because it leads us down a road of devaluing human lives in the course of scientific experimentation. Particularly since we've already seen how such experimentation can lead to an all out assault on human dignity.

are we not talking about using embryos that are destined to be discarded anyway? i think you and the president need to stop using the "every sperm is sacred" logic.
spread the luv
Reply
spread the luv
Reply
post #8 of 262
7/19/06 at 2:13pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Could you expand on this?

I think he's talking about Fundamentalist Christianity
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 262
7/19/06 at 2:15pm
Quote:
Originally posted by running with scissors
are we not talking about using embryos that are destined to be discarded anyway? i think you and the president need to stop using the "every sperm is sacred" logic.

The ban is on federal funding for creating new lines of cells. In other words, it's a ban on federal monies used for creating life and then destroying it.

Gov't funding remains intact for existing lines. 85% of the world's research on stem cells is conducted on existing lines. While some are contaminated, any others remain.

Bush is also the first President to fund stem cell research. However, it's unclear whether Clinton had the opportunity to do so.

Keep in kind there has been no ban on private research. New embryos can be created without federal funding.

Everyone calm down.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #10 of 262
7/19/06 at 2:17pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
The ban is on federal funding for creating new lines of cells. In other words, it's a ban on federal monies used for creating life and then destroying it.

Gov't funding remains intact for existing lines. 85% of the world's research on stem cells is conducted on existing lines. While some are contaminated, any others remain.

Bush is also the first President to fund stem cell research. However, it's unclear whether Clinton had the opportunity to do so.

Keep in kind there has been no ban on private research. New embryos can be created without federal funding.

Everyone calm down.

So it's basically Ok to 'murder a life to save life' if the money comes from private institutions?

Mkay, as usual the Fundies are completely full of hypocritical shit.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 262
7/19/06 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
So it's basically Ok to 'murder a life to save life' if the money comes from private institutions?

Mkay, as usual the Fundies are completely full of hypocritical shit.

No one said it was OK. No one said it wasn't OK. Bush decided not to federally fund new lines, that's all. It was a compromise. He could have decided not to fund ANY research.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #12 of 262
7/19/06 at 2:26pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
No one said it was OK. No one said it wasn't OK. Bush decided not to federally fund new lines, that's all. It was a compromise. He could have decided not to fund ANY research.

So basically he's full of shit. Either it is 'Murder to save life' in which case if you are running faith based government , then all murder is murder, or it is murder but its OK if someone else is funding it.

Now atleast we've confirmed the 2 faced moral stance of the pro-lifers. "We we don't mind murder as long as someone else pays for it". Something we've known for a long time by the fact that they completely oppose abortions for 12 year old kids who were raped by their uncle, but are quite extactic about Israel bombing Lebanese civilians.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 262
7/19/06 at 2:33pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
So basically he's full of shit. Either it is 'Murder to save life' in which case if you are running faith based government , then all murder is murder, or it is murder but its OK if someone else is funding it.

Now atleast we know the 2 faced moral stance of the pro-lifers. "We we don't mind murder as long as someone else pays for it"

Wow, your'e really out there...aren't you? Bush can't just ban all research or research on all lines. It's not within his power.

Really, speaking of hypocrisy though: You're accusing Bush of being a hyopcrite when in fact if he had the power to ban all new lines and used it, you'd be screaming. The fact is that wil accept nothing but your own view of the issue. More than that, anyone who disagrees with you is a hypocrite or fool.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #14 of 262
7/19/06 at 2:34pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Could you expand on this?

The experimentation I was referring to happened a long time ago and under very different circumstances. However, I see the experimentation on human embryos as the breaching of a firewall, which is why I oppose the practice.

Then again, 40 years ago Christians said that if abortion were legalized that euthanasia would be the next item up for discussion, and we were told we were just scaremongering.

Scissors: Sperm and Human embryos are different things, look it up.

Marc, take your meds.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #15 of 262
7/19/06 at 2:37pm
Cue: Someone dismissing Frank777 because of "Godwin's Law".
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 262
7/19/06 at 2:38pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
The left says using corn-based ethanol to fuel cars is bad policy and ethically wrong, because we're burning food when millions in the world go hungry.

Eh? I've never heard of anyone taking that position, and it's certainly not a mainstream liberal position. To the extent anyone does say such a thing, it's just as stupid as Bush's position on stem cells.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 262
7/19/06 at 2:40pm
The fundies are in control
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #18 of 262
7/19/06 at 2:43pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Wow, your'e really out there...aren't you? Bush can't just ban all research or research on all lines. It's not within his power.

Really, speaking of hypocrisy though: You're accusing Bush of being a hyopcrite when in fact if he had the power to ban all new lines and used it, you'd be screaming. The fact is that wil accept nothing but your own view of the issue. More than that, anyone who disagrees with you is a hypocrite or fool.

Except that if it is 'murder' then murder is illegal and an imprisonable offence and if these murders are happening then people need to be bought to justice and the murdering stop - which is well within anyones power to legislate against.

If he believes it is murder then he needs to gather up the sheep and get them to morally crusade against the murderers, becuase thats what people of conviction should morally do.

Infact if he was able to completely ban it in the US, I would be all for it. What you dont do is ignore Murder because you aren't funding it.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 262
7/19/06 at 2:48pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777


Marc, take your meds.

sorry Im busy performing a water miricle.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 262
7/19/06 at 3:29pm
When you realize what the gains could be this is just moronic!

We're talking about a clump of cells that have been fertilized for about a week! Not self aware! Not thinking. Just tissue. Just potential but not there yet. This is dumb.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #21 of 262
7/19/06 at 3:32pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
So it's basically Ok to 'murder a life to save life' if the money comes from private institutions?

Mkay, as usual the Fundies are completely full of hypocritical shit.

Not quite.

It's ok to murder: billions on Iraq and billions to the Israel killing machine.

Not ok to save life.

They are consistent - you can't really argue that they aren't.

They really are always scum., Right down the line. Without deviation. In a way it needs a sort of respect.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #22 of 262
7/19/06 at 3:33pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Except that if it is 'murder' then murder is illegal and an imprisonable offence and if these murders are happening then people need to be bought to justice and the murdering stop - which is well within anyones power to legislate against.

If he believes it is murder then he needs to gather up the sheep and get them to morally crusade against the murderers, becuase thats what people of conviction should morally do.

Infact if he was able to completely ban it in the US, I would be all for it. What you dont do is ignore Murder because you aren't funding it.

Has he called it murder? Would you actually be happier if there was NO federal funding? That's amazing.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #23 of 262
7/19/06 at 3:35pm
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
When you realize what the gains could be this is just moronic!

We're talking about a clump of cells that have been fertilized for about a week! Not self aware! Not thinking. Just tissue. Just potential but not there yet. This is dumb.

We don't know about the gains. We're not sure. If you believe life begins at conception, then you must admit it's creating a life to destroy it.

It's similar to the abortion debate. If I'm talking to someone about abortion and that person refuses to acknowledge that whether or not he/she supports abortion rights, it's still taking a life...then I'm pretty much done with that person.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #24 of 262
7/19/06 at 3:40pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
We don't know about the gains. We're not sure. If you believe life begins at conception, then you must admit it's creating a life to destroy it.

It's similar to the abortion debate. If I'm talking to someone about abortion and that person refuses to acknowledge that whether or not he/she supports abortion rights, it's still taking a life...then I'm pretty much done with that person.

I believe it's human life when it develops more. So if you believe differently then don't go stepping on any bug because it has more going for it in the higher lifeform dept. than a clump of cells at that point. You see it's just not logical to consider that " Human " at that point. About the gains we're a lot more sure than not!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #25 of 262
7/19/06 at 3:44pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
The experimentation I was referring to happened a long time ago and under very different circumstances.

Geez. Comparing scientific experimentation that is supervised, recorded, and adequately controlled with something the Nazis did... doesn't seem like a good argument to me.

In fact, it's pretty troubling that you would equate the two.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #26 of 262
7/19/06 at 3:44pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
We don't know about the gains. We're not sure. If you believe life begins at conception, then you must admit it's creating a life to destroy it.

It's similar to the abortion debate. If I'm talking to someone about abortion and that person refuses to acknowledge that whether or not he/she supports abortion rights, it's still taking a life...then I'm pretty much done with that person.

Ie, you're done with that person if they don't start from a premise you agree with basically....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #27 of 262
7/19/06 at 3:44pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Has he called it murder? Would you actually be happier if there was NO federal funding? That's amazing.

Yes i would be happy if you completely banned it in the US.

Because, the rest of the world is going to carry on doing it, and just like the Roman Empire fell to a faith based theocracy that ended up destroying itself, America will fall to a faith based theocracy that will end up destroying itself.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 262
7/19/06 at 3:46pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Geez. Comparing scientific experimentation that is supervised, recorded, and adequately controlled with something the Nazis did... doesn't seem like a good argument to me.

In fact, it's pretty troubling that you would equate the two.

you forget that the creationists have been brainwashed into thinking science is from Satan. Hitler==Satan==Science.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 262
7/19/06 at 3:47pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Wow, your'e really out there...aren't you? Bush can't just ban all research or research on all lines. It's not within his power.

Really, speaking of hypocrisy though: You're accusing Bush of being a hyopcrite when in fact if he had the power to ban all new lines and used it, you'd be screaming. The fact is that wil accept nothing but your own view of the issue. More than that, anyone who disagrees with you is a hypocrite or fool.

We'd be screaming but at least he wouldn't be a hypocrite.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #30 of 262
7/19/06 at 3:50pm
So what is the score with the Pro-lifers if we can sucessfully create these treatments from non-embryonic stem-cells?

What i really mean is that if we cure the 20 million americans suffering from diabetes, thats 20 million less people whose lives aren't fucked up - so you'll have less chance of preaching sucessfully to them.
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 262
7/19/06 at 3:58pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Has he called it murder? Would you actually be happier if there was NO federal funding? That's amazing.

These cell lines already exist.

All it would be doing is extending federally funded moneys to USING previously harvested embryonic cell lines.

It isn't as if the government is funding the HARVESTING of embryonic cell lines...

This was a stupid, irrational, let me thump my bible decision.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #32 of 262
7/19/06 at 4:02pm
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
We'd be screaming but at least he wouldn't be a hypocrite.

I still don't get the "hypocrite" charge.

He's the President, not the Pope. Very few people (other than Seg and Marc) expect him to rule America with his own brand of Christianity and an iron rod.

If he had banned all such research, he'd been hit with the "theocracy" charge.

All he's done is take a hard look at a procedure that people (Christians and many, many others) have ethical concerns with, and decide that taxpayers who have serious concerns with something of this nature should not be forced to fund it themselves.

Who's being the hypocrite here? Whatever happen to the "pro-choice" view?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #33 of 262
7/19/06 at 4:05pm
Let's look at this a little further. If you beileve that potential is all that important then if you just worked actively to keep the two parents apart you'd be doing the same thing. Do you see how stupid this argument is? The potential is always there. This is beyond dumb.

If this was something that was farther along then you might have a case. But this?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #34 of 262
7/19/06 at 4:05pm
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
I believe it's human life when it develops more. So if you believe differently then don't go stepping on any bug because it has more going for it in the higher lifeform dept. than a clump of cells at that point. You see it's just not logical to consider that " Human " at that point. About the gains we're a lot more sure than not!

Develops when? How much? See the problem?
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #35 of 262
7/19/06 at 4:06pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Yes i would be happy if you completely banned it in the US.

Because, the rest of the world is going to carry on doing it, and just like the Roman Empire fell to a faith based theocracy that ended up destroying itself, America will fall to a faith based theocracy that will end up destroying itself.

Oh here we go. Back to ridiculous "theocracy" argument.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #36 of 262
7/19/06 at 4:06pm


Let's stop briefly and all share a laugh at Marc, who thinks people convert to Christianity because they have diabetes.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #37 of 262
7/19/06 at 4:08pm
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
These cell lines already exist.

All it would be doing is extending federally funded moneys to USING previously harvested embryonic cell lines.

It isn't as if the government is funding the HARVESTING of embryonic cell lines...

This was a stupid, irrational, let me thump my bible decision.

I don't think that's right. Previous cell lines are already funded. New ones aren't.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #38 of 262
7/19/06 at 4:09pm
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Let's look at this a little further. If you beileve that potential is all that important then if you just worked actively to keep the two parents apart you'd be doing the same thing. Do you see how stupid this argument is? The potential is always there. This is beyond dumb.

If this was something that was farther along then you might have a case. But this?

You're talking to yourself again.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #39 of 262
7/19/06 at 4:10pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Develops when? How much? See the problem?

You know. Something with at least fingers and toes and a brain. Until then it just ain't there.

But I know it's the old Monty Python argument. " Every sperm is sacred ".

Geez!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #40 of 262
7/19/06 at 4:10pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't think that's right. Previous cell lines are already funded. New ones aren't.

No. Only lines up to August 2001 are funded (about 20). This bill would have extended the number of lines funded to currently available lines. Not future existing lines from destroyed embroynic sources.

linky
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bush vetos stem cell bill