Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 60

Thread: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,800

    Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill

    [URL=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/washington/20cnd-stem.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1182372540-uqblJhkO/r5h/qGMi6acSg]NY TIMES[/URL]


    WASHINGTON, June 20 — President Bush vetoed a measure promoting embryonic stem cell research today, as he had promised to do, declaring that the bill would have disregarded the sanctity of human life.

    President Bush greeting supporters of his veto of a measure promoting embryonic stem cell research.
    “I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line,” Mr. Bush said, exercising the third veto of his presidency. At the same time, he issued an executive order intended to encourage scientific advances in regenerative medicine, a move that he said would respect “the high aims of science” without encouraging the deliberate destruction of human life.

    The embryonic stem cell measure had widespread public support, and the veto was the second time Mr. Bush has rejected it. (The other veto cast by Mr. Bush was his rejection in May of an Iraq spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing American troops.)

    By pairing the stem-cell veto with a new scientific initiative, the White House clearly hopes to blunt the inevitable criticism that Mr. Bush will face from researchers, from advocates and patients, and from patients and politicians, including many in his own party.

    Democrats were criticizing the veto even before the president had actually wielded his pen. “President Bush won’t listen to the overwhelming majority of Americans who call out for stem cell research,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, said today.

    As for the morality of Mr. Bush’s stand, Mr. Reid said the president’s veto means that “our best scientists continue to work with one hand tied behind their back,” to the detriment of Americans suffering from cancer, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injuries and other calamities.

    Although Mr. Reid vowed that Democrats would not give up on the measure, they do not appear to have enough votes in the House or Senate to override the president’s veto.

    Mr. Bush directed his health and human services secretary, Michael O. Leavitt, to promote research into producing cells with properties akin to those of human embryonic stem cells, without destroying embryos in the process. “I believe it is good use of the taxpayers’ money,” he said.

    Mr. Bush has said repeatedly that embryo destruction is unacceptable to him on moral grounds.

    Administration officials said Mr. Bush wanted the National Institutes of Health to capitalize on recent scientific advances, including a study published this month involving skin cells in mice, that had the potential to sidestep the ethical controversies surrounding embryonic stem cell experiments. The White House has been consulting with scientists in recent weeks on the plan, they said.

    “This is the product of a lot of really hard, earnest work on this policy,” said Karl Zinsmeister, a domestic policy adviser to Mr. Bush who helped develop the initiative. “It is a real, sincere effort to open up a new scientific solution to a vexing problem.”

    But the effort appears largely symbolic — there is no money attached — and some scientists were instantly skeptical. Two leading stem cell researchers, interviewed Tuesday evening, said the recent work was no substitute for embryonic stem cell research. One, Douglas A. Melton of Harvard University, said he had become aware recently that the White House was trying to reach out to some of his colleagues who are pursuing the skin cell research, which has not been replicated in humans.

    “It should be pursued just as actively as we pursue human embryonic stem cell research,” Dr. Melton said of the recent studies. “I’m not trying to say there’s nothing to this,” he continued, “but it doesn’t need any special attention from the White House. All we’ve ever asked is, let human embryonic stem cell research vie for public funding like all other research.”

    Tony Fratto, deputy White House press secretary, said the new initiative was “not about politics. It’s about achieving effective policy.”

    Controversy over human embryonic stem cell studies has been a theme in the Bush presidency. The cells are considered valuable because they are “pluripotent,” meaning they can develop into any type of tissue in the body, and might therefore yield treatments and cures. In August 2001, Mr. Bush said he would allow taxpayers to finance the research, but only on stem cell colonies, called lines, that already existed. He repeated his position today.

    Mr. Bush announced that the registry of embryonic stem cell lines eligible for research with federal tax dollars will be reconfigured as the “human pluripotent stem cell registry,” a change intended to allow other types of stem cells to become eligible for federal financing if they have the same properties as embryonic stem cells.

    Mr. Bush also ordered Secretary Leavittto “support alternative techniques.” the officials said. He instructed Mr. Leavitt to come up with a plan describing how scientists and researchers who want to get new stem cell lines approved for the registry might do so.

    The officials said the White House was particularly encouraged by several new avenues of research, including studies involving stem cells obtained from amniotic fluid, and efforts to extract stem cells from embryos that had been declared “clinically dead.”

    But scientists said those studies could be as ethically problematic as the ones Mr. Bush already opposes. John Gearhart, a stem cell researcher at Johns Hopkins University, said no one had figured out when an embryo could be declared clinically dead. The White House officials said it would be up to the health institutes to develop standards.

    “It is not an alternative for embryonic stem cell research, because some of these alternative procedures still have ethical issues associated with them,” Dr. Gearhart said, adding, “Who is the god that says the embryo is dead?”

  2. #2
    talk about a mule-headed, science hating, sorry excuse of a president. He's a bastard and this stem cell issue demonstrates that sad fact. If he cared so damn much about human life, he wouldn't be so damn trigger happy. He starts a totally unnecessary war, kills tens of thousands of people and ruins hundreds of thousands lives and then has the nerve to say he cares about human life. Gimme a break. He's a worthless sack of ****e.

  3. #3
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=YellowSubmarine]talk about a mule-headed, science hating, sorry excuse of a president. He's a bastard and this stem cell issue demonstrates that sad fact. If he cared so damn much about human life, he wouldn't be so damn trigger happy. He starts a totally unnecessary war, kills tens of thousands of people and ruins hundreds of thousands lives and then has the nerve to say he cares about human life. Gimme a break. He's a worthless sack of ****e.[/QUOTE]


    say, dumbmarine, how many medical treatments have been
    approved with [u]embryonic [/u]stem cell research, which is
    what was under consideration for funding?

    hint: the answer rhymes with your iq

    uh, private enterprise, corporations, and wacko-demia can
    carry on with whatever funds they can scrape up
    its not illlegal--how about you dig some spare pesos
    outta your pocket, or give up a few of your spare eggs

    kinda weird & demented how someone blathering about bush and eugenics
    (which is the "ethical" foundation of the libtard group Planned
    Abortion, er, Parenthood)
    and the sanctity of human life
    is all for this failed, cancer-causing Orwellian experimentation

    now, back to your prayer rug

  4. #4
    this guy has had 3 vetos and 3000 signing statements

    worst... president... ever!

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Increasing research suggests that embryonic stem cells are not the only pluripotent cells, thus not unique, as the proponents of this bill would have us believe. The science has moved past the premise that embryonic stem cells are uniquely valuable for treatment...additionally, to date, all of the successful clinical trials have involved adult stem cells, not embryonic...which have a nasty habit of forming tumors and rejecting.

    It appears as though the conflicts so centrally assumed to be at the heart of this debate are becoming irrelevant, as there continues to be less and less scientific justification for destroying human life for research purposes, in light of the other options and sources of pluripotent stem cells.

    Sadly, this won't stop ignorant, simplistic folks like the ones who, like sheep, posted as they did in this thread and who have outdated, superficial understanding of this issue. It doesn't surprise me, tough; we have a medical doctor who posts here that is so blinded by ideology that he literally thinks unborn children are not of the human species. The first thing a person will do for their beliefs is lie.

  6. #6
    The Stem Cell Debate, at it's Heart, isn't about Stem Cells.

    It's about Abortion.

    Know that, and things look alot clearer when following the news on this topic.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Increasing research suggests that embryonic stem cells are not the only pluripotent cells, thus not unique, as the proponents of this bill would have us believe. The science has moved past the premise that embryonic stem cells are uniquely valuable for treatment...additionally, to date, all of the successful clinical trials have involved adult stem cells, not embryonic...which have a nasty habit of forming tumors and rejecting.

    It appears as though the conflicts so centrally assumed to be at the heart of this debate are becoming irrelevant, as there continues to be less and less scientific justification for destroying human life for research purposes, in light of the other options and sources of pluripotent stem cells.

    Sadly, this won't stop ignorant, simplistic folks like the ones who, like sheep, posted as they did in this thread and who have outdated, superficial understanding of this issue. It doesn't surprise me, tough; we have a medical doctor who posts here that is so blinded by ideology that he literally thinks unborn children are not of the human species. The first thing a person will do for their beliefs is lie.[/QUOTE]

    Your a smart guy, really you are. But stick to subjects you understand , like economics. Your understanding of the science behind embryonic stem cells is too superficial for you to be lecturing others on this site. Leave the science to those who practice it. You can comment on the ethics and the economic value of this research all you want, but please dont comment on the science like you have, you sound very silly.
    Last edited by kennyo7; 06-21-2007 at 02:28 PM.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=Warfish]The Stem Cell Debate, at it's Heart, isn't about Stem Cells.

    It's about Abortion.

    Know that, and things look alot clearer when following the news on this topic.[/QUOTE]

    Bingo!!!

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,974
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]that he literally thinks unborn children are not of the human species...[/QUOTE]


    So are you or are you not against the discarding of unused embryos which are made during the in vitro process?

    Should we hold them in the hopes that many women someday will be willing to implant them so that these unborn children will not be throw away with the trash?


    If stem cell harvesting is morally wrong because unborn fetuses are destroyed...shouldn't in vitro processes also be considered immoral because of the discarding of the unused embryos?
    Last edited by PlumberKhan; 06-21-2007 at 02:25 PM.

  10. #10
    If people have a "moral problem" with stem cell research, why not ban it completely. I mean if its wrong in their eyes why do they accept Private Funding of it butnot public funding. Would these same folks also be ok with privately funded abortion clinics? And while we are at it why not ban in vitro fertilization? I mean do you know how many "lives" are destroyed with one successful IVF implantation?

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Your a smart guy, really you are. But stick to subjects you understand , like economics. Your understanding of the science behind embryonic stem cells is too superficial for you to be lecturing others on this sight. Leave the science to those who practice it. You can comment on the ethics and the economic value of this research all you want, but please dont comment on the science like you have, you sound very silly.[/QUOTE]

    Interesting that you don't lecture the others on this thread who also replied. I wasn't aware that YS and Bit were biochemists, like you?

    And yes, this debate is about abortion, which is why liberals like you have try to mislead people about the current state of the science. Again, it's not surprising to me, though, since you are a trained medical doctor who does not think that unborn children are humans.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]So are you or are you not against the discarding of unused embryos which are made during the in vitro process?

    Should we hold them in the hopes that many women someday will be willing to implant them so that these unborn children will not be throw away with the trash?


    If stem cell harvesting is morally wrong because unborn fetuses are destroyed...shouldn't in vitro processes also be considered immoral because of the discarding of the unused embryos?[/QUOTE]
    Yes, in vitro is morally wrong IMO. Thus, by extension, I am against discarding unused embryos. Yes, kenny, I think embryonic stem cell research should be outlawed.

    I don't understand the quotations around the word lives, Kenny...are you honestly trying to suggest that embryos aren't alive? If so, you should probably stop practicing medicine.

    Why outlaw any research? I'll throw this back at you...what research should be outlawed, in your views and why? Why not simply use death row prisoners for medical experiments and research? Clearly we'd speed things up if we are able to use actual humans, right?

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Interesting that you don't lecture the others on this thread who also replied. I wasn't aware that YS and Bit were biochemists, like you?

    And yes, this debate is about abortion, which is why liberals like you have try to mislead people about the current state of the science. Again, it's not surprising to me, though, since you are a trained medical doctor who does not think that unborn children are humans.[/QUOTE]

    YS and Bit are simply rehashing what the majority of scientists believe. Are they right? Maybe maybe not. But thats science for you. Lots of work needs to be done to get the answers and there ha been enough promise in this field to warrant further studies. Of course if you want to ban public funding for it, alot o f these answers will not be answered.

    You are hung up on this "unborn children are not human". Why??? Do you seriously consider a 6 week embryo the equivilant of a independently viable infant? If you do, you are nuts. Take that 6 week embryo out of the womb and try to use all the available technology to sustain it. You cannot, and in all likely hood you never will be able to. Thats why i dont consider it "human". Is it "human" in the sense of species and genetic make up, yes. But if thats your definition of life, well what can i say

    Funny that you believe so much in the government protecting the "unborn" yet you dont feel the same way about those who are walking the earth. If i recall correctly didnt you once say "health care is a privilege not a right that the govt should provide all its citizens"? Riggght! Your part of that culture of life! Defend the unborn, but for those poor bastids who cant afford health care, let them suffer and die if they cant pay up! Very consistant!

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Yes, in vitro is morally wrong IMO. Thus, by extension, I am against discarding unused embryos. Yes, kenny, I think embryonic stem cell research should be outlawed.

    [B]I don't understand the quotations around the word lives, Kenny...are you honestly trying to suggest that embryos aren't alive? If so, you should probably stop practicing medicine.[/B]

    Why outlaw any research? I'll throw this back at you...what research should be outlawed, in your views and why? Why not simply use death row prisoners for medical experiments and research? Clearly we'd speed things up if we are able to use actual humans, right?[/QUOTE]

    In the most simplistic , rudimentary definition, yes they are alive.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Funny that you believe so much in the government protecting the "unborn" yet you dont feel the same way about those who are walking the earth. If i recall correctly didnt you once say "health care is a privilege not a right that the govt should provide all its citizens"? Riggght! Your part of that culture of life! Defend the unborn, but for those poor bastids who cant afford health care, let them suffer and die if they cant pay up! Very consistant![/QUOTE]

    There IS a fundamental difference here you seem to be conciously overlooking:

    A fetus, IF it is indeed a "Life" by Societies Moral Standard (and as I always say, Society sets it's own morals on such issues), is a defenseless Life, 100% unable to fend for, or defend, it's own existance.

    The only debate then, as it has been all along, is what constitutes Life to our Society. So far, via Abortion laws, In Vitro laws, etc, Fetus's are not granted the rights of Life, except in a select few VERY hypocritical instances (for example, kill a pregant woman and you get TWO Murder counts, when the Mother can abort that same fetus with no repurcussions).

    A "Born" Life, i.e. any old Human Being, is not defenseless, is able to fend for itself, and throught it's own actions can take steps to ensure it's own viabillity and health.

    Society also does protect it's Life. Not it's QUALITY of life, but it's right to live and exist. Above and beyond that, our society has also determined that we can and should help those disabled via various programs, few of which get much criticism from even the most die-hard anti-welfar guy (myself included, I support "welfare" for the Handicapped).

    Trying to mix these two issues (the Definition of Life and the role of teh State to provide QUality of Life) only serves to muddy the issues involved here.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]

    Why outlaw any research? I'll throw this back at you...what research should be outlawed, in your views and why? Why not simply use death row prisoners for medical experiments and research? Clearly we'd speed things up if we are able to use actual humans, right?[/QUOTE]

    Simple. Any research involving human subjects requires informed consent. That consent must come from the individual. If the individual does not have the capacity to make an informed consent, a legal proxy may do so. In the case of embryonic stem cells, it is the donor who gives consent for the use of the embryo. Research shows the vast majority of parents are in agreement to donating their unused embryos for biomedical research.

    The research and consent form must be approved by a scientific/ethic board. To get into what is allowed and what isnt allowed would take to long . Ill give you a link as soon as ican

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]YS and Bit are simply rehashing what the majority of scientists believe. Are they right? Maybe maybe not. But thats science for you. Lots of work needs to be done to get the answers and there ha been enough promise in this field to warrant further studies. Of course if you want to ban public funding for it, alot o f these answers will not be answered.

    You are hung up on this "unborn children are not human". Why??? Do you seriously consider a 6 week embryo the equivilant of a independently viable infant? If you do, you are nuts. Take that 6 week embryo out of the womb and try to use all the available technology to sustain it. You cannot, and in all likely hood you never will be able to. Thats why i dont consider it "human". Is it "human" in the sense of species and genetic make up, yes. But if thats your definition of life, well what can i say

    Funny that you believe so much in the government protecting the "unborn" yet you dont feel the same way about those who are walking the earth. If i recall correctly didnt you once say "health care is a privilege not a right that the govt should provide all its citizens"? Riggght! Your part of that culture of life! Defend the unborn, but for those poor bastids who cant afford health care, let them suffer and die if they cant pay up! Very consistant![/QUOTE]


    You consistently fail to understand what I am saying. I would love nothing more than for everyone to have enough food and money and access to healthcare. But saying it is a right does not make it so. Healthcare is a scarce resource that has high costs. These realities cannot be wished away merely by the force of your convictions or righteous indignation. The best mechanism to raise living standards is the free market...the evidence for this is simply overwhelming. I simply want to allow the free market to operate. I have just as much (and I would argue, more) sympathy towards unfortunate people as those on the left do, or those who prattle on about "rights" do. I simply dsisagree intensely as to the best way to go about making healthcare more affordable for everyone. It is folly to think that a government monopoly on healthcare is better for the country as a whole...absolute folly. That will make things WORSE. It is a common trait of those on the left to attribute nefarious motives to those with whom they disagree in terms of process. It isn't possible for you to consider that I want to help people like you do, but disagree as to the best way to do it. No, you have to invent nonsense like this post. I think you're idea of government-run healthcare would do enormous damage to the very people you are trying to help, but I don't attribute bad motives to you for thinking that way. You're just wrong, not evil. However, you do't afford me the same respect and it gets tiresome. This is why I don't take you seriously Kenny, you're not rational.

    I asked you point-blank if you thought unborn children were humans and you said no. You know they are human and you know they are alive. These are facts that you don't dispute. The rest is your spin and nothing more.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]In the most simplistic , rudimentary definition, yes they are alive.[/QUOTE]

    They are either alive or they aren't.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=Warfish]There IS a fundamental difference here you seem to be conciously overlooking:

    A fetus, IF it is indeed a "Life" by Societies Moral Standard (and as I always say, Society sets it's own morals on such issues), is a [B]defenseless Life, 100% unable to fend for, or defend, it's own existance.[/B]

    The only debate then, as it has been all along, is what constitutes Life to our Society. So far, via Abortion laws, In Vitro laws, etc, Fetus's are not granted the rights of Life, except in a select few VERY hypocritical instances (for example, kill a pregant woman and you get TWO Murder counts, when the Mother can abort that same fetus with no repurcussions).

    A[B] "Born" Life, i.e. any old Human Being, is not defenseless, is able to fend for itself, and throught it's own actions can take steps to ensure it's own viabillity and health.[/B]

    Society also does protect it's Life. Not it's QUALITY of life, but it's right to live and exist. Above and beyond that, our society has also determined that we can and should help those disabled via various programs, few of which get much criticism from even the most die-hard anti-welfar guy (myself included, I support "welfare" for the Handicapped).

    Trying to mix these two issues (the Definition of Life and the role of teh State to provide QUality of Life) only serves to muddy the issues involved here.[/QUOTE]

    An elderly man with a debilitating disease who has no insurance and can not work to pay for his medications/care [B]IS[/B] a defenseless person against his disease.

    When you do not have the means to pay for treatment/care for a fatal disease the issue is NOT Quality of Life but rather LIFE itself

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]They are either alive or they aren't.[/QUOTE]

    Fine they are alive. So is your sperm. And it also has the genetic potential to form a fully functioning human.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us