Stem Cell research


Rush

Cool Cruncher
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
4,128
Reaction score
8
Should or not ????

Bush vetoes stem cell bill

WASHINGTON - President Bush framed the first veto of his presidency Wednesday as a matter of morality rather than politics, but it will surely have political impact, one that could damage Republicans in November’s congressional elections.



Bush’s veto struck down legislation that would expand federal research on embryonic stem cells aimed at finding cures for many diseases. He said he vetoed the bill because it would lead to destruction of embryos that could develop into human life, and thus “it crosses a moral boundary that our society needs to respect.”

Bush spoke at the White House, where to illustrate his point he’d gathered 18 families that included children born from implanted embryos. “These boys and girls are not spare parts,” Bush said.

But bipartisan majorities in Congress oppose his stand. So, polls show, do a majority of the American people. They agree with scientists who argue that the embryos in question come from fertility clinics, where they would otherwise be destroyed. Scientists say research on stem cells could lead to cures for Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, spinal cord injuries and other illnesses that afflict millions of Americans.

Bush’s choice for such a signature event is thus fraught with potential political consequences. While it may curry favor with religious conservatives, who compose the cornerstone of his political base, his stand may alienate moderate Republicans, independent voters and others who see the research as key to helping save lives. Most Democrats champion the stem-cell bill, as do many Republicans, including Nancy Reagan, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

Congressional Democrats made clear Wednesday that they intend to make Bush’s veto a central campaign issue in November’s elections, as they vowed at a Capitol Hill rally to fight on to pass the legislation. They currently lack the two-thirds majorities needed to override Bush’s veto in Congress, however.

“And whether it's this year, or with a new Senate and a new House and the next president, this will become the law of the United States,” vowed Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, speaking at a rally of Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Schumer heads the Senate Democrats’ campaign committee for November’s elections.

Political analysts see Bush’s veto as a plus for the Democrats.

“On the Democratic side of things, it’s an ace in the hole. It’s a good wedge issue and a good base issue that appeals to crossover Republicans,” said John Zogby, an independent pollster. “For the president, it’s business as usual. This is a guy who’s staked his entire career on shoring up the base, and this is a base kind of issue.”

The stem-cell issue is already central in Missouri, where the national Democratic Party is highlighting Republican Sen. James Talent’s opposition to the bill in an effort to deny him re-election. His Democratic challenger, state auditor Claire McCaskill, bashes Talent on the issue at virtually every stop and is leading him in polls.

With Republican lawmakers already burdened by Bush’s low job-approval ratings and the unpopular war in Iraq, they may regret that he cast his first veto to kill such a popular measure.

But Bush’s veto may be not so much a political act as one of personal conscience. His faith is central to his character, and he sees the issue in moral terms, not electoral ones.

“I believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator,” Bush said in an August 2001 nationally televised address on the stem-cell issue. “I worry about a culture that devalues life, and I believe as your president I have an obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world.”

Paul Weyrich, the chairman and chief executive officer of the conservative Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, says Bush’s veto is devoid of politics. Weyrich remembers imploring Bush to use his veto earlier, but said the president was reluctant to quarrel with a Republican-controlled Congress.

“Finally, there was an issue where he couldn’t compromise,” Weyrich said. “He’s a pro-life president who genuinely believes that destroying an embryo is taking a potential human life.”

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow also says the veto is about morality, not politics.

“The president believes strongly that, for the purpose of research, it's inappropriate for the federal government to finance something that many people consider murder. He's one of them,” Snow said.

Still, some analysts think that Bush’s veto is both political and personal.

“It is personal, but it’s also the modus operandi of the Bush administration: This is base politics and wedge politics as practiced by Bush and Karl Rove,” pollster Zogby said.

Whether the veto will endanger Republican lawmakers at the polls is debatable.

“They will deal with it in the way they have dealt with it in the past,” said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. “And I don’t see any huge consequences politically on this issue.”

Other Republicans, however, see risk.

Tony Fabrizio, who was the chief pollster for Republican Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign, said Bush’s veto could make Republicans in Northeastern and suburban districts more vulnerable.

“This is a great issue in the heartland of Kansas, in Georgia and South Carolina, but does it help you in New York, Connecticut and California?” Fabrizio said. “You can’t imagine anyone opposing stem cells would be popular in those districts.”
 
Ad

Advertisements

cirianz

Chatter Box
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
2,386
Reaction score
5
Hmmmmm.... I know it's a sticky issue but in my opinion

when one of those 'demonstration children' is dying of cancer or some other disease that could've been cured or prevented by stem cell research from a non self aware embryo... how do you define that as 'pro-life'?

It's easy to take the moral high ground when it's not your own children/family/friends that are dying. But my feeling is that stem cell research is about saving lives, not destroying them.

But then, I am not religious & it is my opinion that self awareness & perception in the human animal cannot exist without a brain to percieve & concieve with.

I am well aware that there are plenty of people out there who would disagree with me.
& they're quite welcome to.

But remember that, real children will die who might otherwise have lived.
And this is a voting issue.
So this is something we each will decide ;)


NB: I have refered to children here as the article & the president has used children to create an emotional impact. We all know most of these diseases/incidents are no respectors of age :(
 

Ian

Administrator
Joined
Feb 23, 2002
Messages
19,752
Reaction score
1,414
I'm all for this, for the same reasons as you Ciri - if it can save lives it can only be a good thing. Of course it could be misused, but so can any powerful tool (the internet being one example).

As far as I'm aware, the UK is doing quite a bit of research in stem cell areas. Many of the claims of being able to grow whole organs outside of the body seem far fetched, but if this is a possibility then it will be an incredible step in medicine.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
1,934
Reaction score
0
nah

you cannot create a life simply to destroy it

how can you say that the the embryo's life is worth less than the person with the disease?

If we allow this ( which inevitably we will after time) we will in effect condoling murder. You are basically preventing a child from growing up, even if that child looks like an ugly lump of goo.

Next it will be cloning, then you will be able to choose the charicteristics of your child, then someone will create an army of superhumans and kill us all.

This is all wrong in my opinion. Of course, should someone related be affected by this I would probably change my mind I know. I'm not trying to taske the moral high ground you understand, I just think it is completely wrong.
 
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
6,738
Reaction score
102
Depends entirely on the circumstances i guess...

But i think it probably is a good idea if it is a miriacle cure for disease...

But then there will be a massive increase in population and we'll all die
 
Ad

Advertisements

Me__2001

Internet Junkie
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,354
Reaction score
1
there a pro's and con's for everything we do in life, they'll be arguing about his for the next 10 years in which time someone will probably be doing it anyway and find a cure for something or other
 

Rush

Cool Cruncher
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
4,128
Reaction score
8
Space

By Chris
But i think it probably is a good idea if it is a miriacle cure for disease...

But then there will be a massive increase in population and we'll all die

Colonising the Universe would go hand in hand then Chris
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
PotGuy said:
nah

you cannot create a life simply to destroy it

how can you say that the the embryo's life is worth less than the person with the disease?

If we allow this ( which inevitably we will after time) we will in effect condoling murder. You are basically preventing a child from growing up, even if that child looks like an ugly lump of goo.

Next it will be cloning, then you will be able to choose the charicteristics of your child, then someone will create an army of superhumans and kill us all.

This is all wrong in my opinion. Of course, should someone related be affected by this I would probably change my mind I know. I'm not trying to taske the moral high ground you understand, I just think it is completely wrong.

But all of these embryos from which they would attain the stem cells are going to be destroyed anyway. Would you rather just dump them in the trash (as they will be), or do something with them to help people?
 
Ad

Advertisements

floppybootstomp

sugar 'n spikes
Moderator
Joined
Mar 5, 2002
Messages
20,250
Reaction score
1,753
PotGuy said:
you cannot create a life simply to destroy it


But how many of those lives are created intentionally and how many are created by accident?

How many of those lives that go full term are born into poverty and unto parents or a single parent who's not exactly too gifted in the IQ stakes?

How many of those lives will be part of a single parent family, wholly dependent on the state to stay alive, be housed, be educated and receive medical help when they need it?

How many of those lives will be raised in less than ideal conditions and go on to become child abusers, criminals, welfare scroungers, bullies and basically be a drain on society?

You want to preserve a life that contributes nothing to society?

And think of the mother-to-be. Mistakes happen. Passion sometimes overules logic. Contraception sometimes does not work. For any number of reasons a girl may end up pregnant. If she gives birtth at, say, 18 years old, her life's over. Financial struggling, goodbye University degree, goodbye gaining a useful career, goodbye age 18-28 living life, seeing the world, holidays with friends, just generally goodbye good times at the best time of your life.

Some religious nutters will preserve a life at any cost. Never mind if that life impacts upon others and lowers the quality of life for many, the zealots have had their way.

Freedom of choice. A lady's decision. Carrying to full term often messes up more than one life. Pro-choice.

And that is my view, FWIW.

PS: This is not to diss single parents, really, just a general overview.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top