House Fails to Override Stem Cell Veto

I do hate how a politics seems like a commercial. They use subliminals and some not so subtleliminals, all the time. When Pres. Bush announced the Iraq gov had been successfully formed, he did so in front of a picture of Washington. When he did his mission accompished speech, iraq's freed from Saddam, he landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln

Why does the government fund so much research anyway? When's the last time you heard of a great breakthrough at a government research lab?

The government provides funding for basic research, it doesn't undertake the research itself.

Embryonic stem-cell research has the potential to save human life, but now scientists in this field will have to hunt for private funding.

Maybe that doesn't sound like such a big deal. But given that the government's National Institutes of Health makes the pivotal investments in early- stage, basic medical research, its "count us out" policy is an enormous blow to a huge new field, says Sam Berger of the progressive bioethics initiative at the Center for American Progress. In the five years since the President forbade federal funding on any but the existing embryonic stem-cell lines - which arenow considered old and contaminated - the U.S. has fallen behind inthe field.

In 2002, Berger points out, Americans published about one-third of all the scientific papers on embryonic stem-cell research. Just two years later, we were publishing only one-fourth, as countries like England, Belgium and Sweden aggressively supported their cutting-edge scientists.

Source

The pro-stem cell research crowd paraded around children who were disabled pleading for a cure.

Don't act like it's on the anti-stem cell research crowd that's terrible.

The pro-stem cell research crowd paraded around children who were disabled pleading for a cure.

You mean children who could actually and actively be helped by stem cell research?

Congratulations. I'm completely nonplussed.

I could care less who gets paraded around; but Brian Ford apparently does. I am pointing out to him who was parading whom. I honestly don't care what happens either which way with this issue. I am the one who is "nonplussed".

I could care less who gets paraded around; but Brian Ford apparently does.

Damn straight! (And, clearly you "do" care.)

The difference:

Those who oppose this research have argued that ESCR "currently cures nothing" and that people who currently have diseases won't benefit and that these embryos will therefore be destroyed for nothing.

It's therefore relevant to "parade" children with diseases that -could- someday be cured if we allow this research to proceed with proper funding. It's a direct (and justified) response to a stupid argument. It's a shame that they have to do it, but the arguments that they have to respond to are shameful.

What Bush did is put a bunch of cute kids up on stage that would have been born even "if" this research were federally funded with the assertion that we'd be murdering them if he did not veto the bill. What he (conveninetly) left out is that even "if" it were federally funded these kids would be standing on that stage because embryos will only be used for research if the donors allow them to be used. Otherwise -- they will be discarded or used for further IVF. (At the donor's discretion.) If discarded -- they still wouldn't be standing on stage next to smug and shameless George Bush.

Lastly,

Don't tell me how to act.

The difference:

Those who oppose this research have argued that ESCR "currently cures nothing" and that people who currently have diseases won't benefit and that these embryos will therefore be destroyed for nothing.

It's therefore relevant to "parade" children with diseases that -could- someday be cured if we allow this research to proceed with proper funding. It's a direct (and justified) response to a stupid argument. It's a shame that they have to do it, but the arguments that they have to respond to are shameful.

What Bush did is put a bunch of cute kids up on stage that would have been born even "if" this research were federally funded with the assertion that we'd be murdering them if he did not veto the bill. What he (conveninetly) left out is that even "if" it were federally funded these kids would be standing on that stage because embryos will only be used for research if the donors allow them to be used. Otherwise -- they will be discarded or used for further IVF. (At the donor's discretion.) If discarded -- they still wouldn't be standing on stage next to smug and shameless George Bush.

And the same side would claim ESCR cures diseases that it almost certainly can't. When it comes down to it, both sides do it. Period.

Don't tell me how to act.

Where am I telling you how to act? Really, point it out. The only thing I was doing was pointing out the other side does the same exact thing. I wasn't telling you or your side to do it or not to do it, I was observing who does it (which is both sides).

And no, I really don't care who wins; I do care for honesty in debate, however.

Don't act like it's on the anti-stem cell research crowd that's terrible.

Hrm.

And the same side would claim ESCR cures diseases that it almost certainly can't. When it comes down to it, both sides do it. Period

So, you attacked my (valid) criticism of Bush's (invalid) appeal to emotion and when I responded to your original criticism you change direction and attack me on something else that I don't even discuss in my original comment?

That's bull@!$%# and it just makes your original (now abandoned) argument look even worse than it already was.

But, since -you- brought it up:

They argue that there is all sorts of potential with this research. Hope springs eternal and that hope is what they are arguing for. Of course we don't know what this research will reveal -- that's part of the reason that we should exploit it. (And no reason to veto it.)

No, it doesn't make it look like bull@!$%# - you just don't like being made equivolent to *gasp* them. Which is more humorous than anything.

And as far as their mentality is concerned; any solution can be bought for a price, there's just the line that society is willing to pay for that solution. They believe we should sacrifice the potential of human life to better human life, and that there are other ways. My God, look, a valid argument.

70% of society -wants- to "pay that price". Bush didn't listen to his public (nor the a bi-partisan Senate) when making this choice.

Luckily we can overtun Bush's shannigans in November.

Sounds like Bush is "flip-flopping" on issues. Where have we heard this before?

Brian Ford: isn't this a problem in any society, the 70% not getting its way? I would actually argue that basically 100% would be in favor if the glories of stem cell stuff come to fruition and my own son is the one that stands to benefit. Still, these are difficult things in a world with limited resources that currently mainly go to major corporate interests.

How credible is a "WAR president" talking about saving lives? Are there some americans left that are not infected with Mad Bush Disease?

Well said, Marco.

How credible is a "WAR president" talking about saving lives?

Entirely credible. A War President saves American lives. So defending the country and saving embryos is consistent.

I'm not against abortion or research conducted on embryos I'm just pointing out that President Bush is actually consistent in his thinking.

Well, you are absolutely right, if we talk about american embryos only.
If a president orders his soldiers to kill other people (that is what a war president basically does), then he must be aware that there may be so called "collateral damage" - for example an Iraqi women carrying an embryo in her body. If the killing of frozen embryos is a crime, then killing a person carrying a growing embryo is a crime either – isn't it? Embryos usually do not plant roadside bombs or shoot people, so there is no reason to call any embryo a terrorist. I know, how could someone imagine that a bomb would accidentially kill civilians.
If Bush would have said "people who deliberately kill (american) embryos are assh*les" – i would have kept my mouth shut. But this is not what he said.
By the way: In the middle ages, the Roman Catholic Church wasn't against abortion either - they believed that the soul would be implanted by God after 40 days (men) and 80-90 days (women), so it wasn't that bad, to abort before. Pius IX changed that (God probably told him to do so – the same God that told our new alcoholic messiah to start wars in the name of democracy).

Huntan, Perfectly said!

Nobody said this was a breakdown of the democratic process. Just that Bush exercised his right to override the will of 70% of the American people.

No, he exercised his right to override the will of less than 66% of Congress, who represent the people. If that wasn't his right, it wouldn't be in the Constitution. I thought we wern't in the business of damning people for exercising their Constitutional rights. Just as much as we don't want him telling us not to petition the government, we shouldn't be treating him as criminal for doing what is his, literally, God-given right.

There is so much nonsense going on with your response, that I don't know where to start.

No, he exercised his right to override the will of less than 66% of Congress, who represent the people

Well did he or did he not override the will of the people?

If that wasn't his right, it wouldn't be in the Constitution.

The President has the right to do a lot of things, it doesn't mean his decisions are above criticism. And if you notice, I didn't dispute his veto right.

treating him as criminal

I don't see anybody arresting Bush or putting him on trial. Nobody is calling for that either. Who exactly are you arguing with?

his, literally, God-given right

I didn't know that the presidential veto power was a God given right. Is that in the Bible?

Maybe you need to exercise a little reading comprehension next time before you go off arguing with straw men.

The President has the right to do a lot of things, it doesn't mean his decisions are above criticism. And if you notice, I didn't dispute his veto right.

Could have fooled me. People cam chide all they want; since it's his right to do so, he has already explained himself in his veto and people still complain; he's made it explicitly clear before, time after time, that the more people complain, the less he listens/cares.

I didn't know that the presidential veto power was a God given right. Is that in the Bible?

No, it's the Constitution's grounding in Natural Rights. Yes, they believe rights are granted by God and guarenteed by government. First day of pre-law 101 they teach you that.

Maybe you need to exercise a little reading comprehension next time before you go off arguing with straw men.

Perhaps a civics lesson would do you well.

Could have fooled me

Looks like you've been fooled.

he's made it explicitly clear before, time after time, that the more people complain, the less he listens/cares

Just the kind of man I want running this country.

Natural Rights

If you actually read your Wikipedia link, you'd see that God isn't even mentioned once.

Rights absolutely no conveyed to humans by government; they are, in our system of government, granted by God and guarenteed by government. That's how it is. Read John Locke, or perhaps, read anything about our system of rights and it'll surprise you.

Read John Locke, or perhaps, read anything about our system of rights and it'll surprise you.

Actually, I checked John Locke's Wikipedia entry and there is no mention of God or religion there either. Any other specious claims you'd like to make?

Natural rights don't imply God. They are considered natural. If you believe God is responsible for nature, then you believe natural rights are given by God. However, God is not required to hold this belief. It might help you to remember that many of the founding fathers were Deists and for all practical purposes the word "nature" or "universe" could be used in place of God.

Besides, we're talking about a veto. A veto is not a right of the President. It is a power granted by the People (not God) to the President of the United States of America.

I agree with Izhang and Lukas.

And "chiding" the President for his decision to ignore that the majority of americans are for stem cell research doesn't mean we are challenging his right to veto. There is a large difference between the two, and you are focusing your energy on something no one has challenged.

Natural rights don't imply God. They are considered natural. If you believe God is responsible for nature, then you believe natural rights are given by God. However, God is not required to hold this belief. It might help you to remember that many of the founding fathers were Deists and for all practical purposes the word "nature" or "universe" could be used in place of God.

Let's look at the Declaration, shall we?

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

So on and so forth. The Founding Fathers had a clear and unambiguous view that God granted humans powers and the government was responsible for guarenteeing them. Whether you like it or not, whether your ideaology so blinds you to history and concession, doesn't change the indisputable fact that this is the basis for our system of jurisprudence. The fact people upvoted your comment displays that X-number of people are equally as ignorant.

If this country actually mattered on direct democracy votes, this would be an issue; but it's not. If the will of the people was meant to be followed, then the Constitution should have been changed. Instead, we have a system of indirect representation; exactly what Bush is engaging in.

Ok...great for the dec of independence.

You said it was Bush's god given right to veto.

The Declaration gives no right to veto to the president, but it talks about God.

The Constitution gives the right to veto to the president, but it is a right given by the Constitution, not God.

You're drawing very awkward conclusions.

The Declaration was meant to draw on the idea of God and the Founding Fathers strict belief in a higher power.

And if you want to get really technical about it, the Declaration, and natural law itself, has been used as precedent in around 6 Supreme Court decisions years ago, as yet overturned, so it's Constitutional law as well.

RegBarc,

Context:

I didn't know that the presidential veto power was a God given right. Is that in the Bible?

No, it's the Constitution's grounding in Natural Rights. Yes, they believe rights are granted by God and guarenteed by government. First day of pre-law 101 they teach you that.

No one has disputed that the founding fathers based the Constitution on natural rights. No one has disputed that the role of the government is to protect our rights. No one suggested that the government hands out rights. These are your own straw men.

I disputed the idea that this means the veto is a "God-given" right of the President. It's not God-given, and its not a right. It is the People, not God, that give the President of the United States the power to either sign laws or reject them.

I guess I don't understand why, if this kind of research is so potentially beneficial, then why hasn't a major foundation stepped (Bill and Melinda?) up to buy the cells and start doing their own research if the Feds won't.

why hasn't a major foundation stepped (Bill and Melinda?) up to buy the cells and start doing their own research

Although the Feds won't fund embryonic stem cell research, individual states are stepping up with hundreds of millions of dollars in allocated funds for research. I think that's a pretty good indication that the research is potentially beneficial.

why hasn't a major foundation stepped (Bill and Melinda?) up to buy the cells and start doing their own research

When someone says "you can't use federal funding for stem cell research," it means you can't use anything that's currently being used for other federal projects or anything paid for by the government. So if your lab has a $100,000,000 machine that you use, and you're currently working on a government project, you're not allowed to use it for stem cell research, even after hours or at times when it wouldn't be in use. There's supposed to be no use of federal materials at all.

There aren't many private companies are going to shell out enough money to buy doubles of all their equipment to do research on something which doesn't appear to have commercial prospects at this point.

That is a good clarification of a probably-logical point that I hadn't thought of. If there aren't commercial prospects, I still wonder if stem-cell research is anything at all. Though, if it is like the Internet, maybe people are hoping that the early research will be done by government until it becomes clear that it IS commercially viable. But that is just the business or non-profit world being lazy.

something which doesn't appear to have commercial prospects at this point.

But you guys seem to be of the opinion that this could open up great things.

indecent, I am not entirely sure if this is true. I was reading the actual bill to be signed. First there is no actual ban of federal funds, there is just only so many earmarked for the research and for a particular line of research. Second there are specific funds in question, just funds from the NIH. These are the only funds mentioned in the just-vetoed bill. I am not sure if scientists are prohibited from using tools that they already have acquired using government funding. There is just nothing in the language of the bill or veto to support that.

But you guys seem to be of the opinion that this could open up great things.

Yes, great things like cures, and better knowledge of science. But cancer cures even today, while expensive and widely used, and not anything you'd call "commercial". They're necessary, and I'm thankful for the technology, but its not something any investors are clambering to get into. As for you, Adam, you need to extend your reading beyond only this bill, and include previous laws and the bill in 2001.

It is currently illegal, because of Congress, to use federal funds for any experiment that creates or destroys a human embryo. Creating new embryos through cloning falls squarely under that ban. So does destroying an embryo to create stem cells.
Since human embryonic stem cells are not themselves embryos, however, different rules apply. The accepted view is that research with the cells doesn't fall under Congress' federal funding ban. In 2001, however, President Bush extended the ban to cover all human embryonic stem cells—making an exception only for certain cells (currently estimated at 22 stem cell lines) that had already been created by the time of his announcement.

Did he actually get re-elected? Fooled Again.

Doesn't appear to be so, as the few people that made valid points - instead of goofing with semantics as RegBarc did - didn't get any rebuttals.

I think President Bush is justified in what he did.

He has had this stand on stem cells for nearly 5 years and during that time he still got reelected by a majority of the American people. Sure a majority disagree with him on this issue, but he still should stand by what he thinks is right and campaigned on.

And I don't think we should throw away the embryos but rather put them up for adoption.

He has had this stand on stem cells for nearly 5 years and during that time he still got reelected by a majority of the American people

Wrong. In 2001, he allowed the continued research on stem cells.

As Brian Ford stated above:

Oddly, when he needed to get re-elected, he thought it was okay for federal money to be spent on research that would involve "some" embryos. Moral boundaries do not contain loopholes, Mr. President.

President Bush standing by what he thinks is right. That is the biggest problem we face today. Rather than adapt and survive, learn new information and refine his stance/opinion, he just keeps on with his concrete beliefs.

The true sign of lack of critical thinking skills is not being able to change your mind in light of new information.

I understand why it might look strong to hold fast in your opinions, but this is not a trait of good leadership. A good leader not only changes his mind from time to time, but is able to explain his mind change in a way that his supporters can follow.

I would have nothing but respect for the man had he decided to educate himself on exactly what he was about to do those suffering in this country and decided that the law was bigger than him and he needed to set aside the Rovian partisanship rhetoric and be a man.

He was a coward to his evangelical base today and it makes him look weaker than he already did.

I am sure President Bush has done a lot of thinking and soul searching on this issue. And he has come out not agreeing with you guys that does not make him the worst person in the world. And most of those suffering now would not be miraculously healed if President Bush would have signed the bill into law.

And he was not a coward to his base he just kept in mind those who voted for him. I would hope that all politicians would do that.

And most of those suffering now would not be miraculously healed if President Bush would have signed the bill into law

Nobody has made any such claim.

Adult stem cell research has already shown that stem cell treatments can potentially cure a variety of serious diseases such as cancer, muscle damage, blindness, and spinal cord injury. The potential for embryonic stem cell treatments is even greater because the cells multiply faster and are less likely to be defective or damaged.

When we neglect to fund embryonic stem cell research, we are closing doors to cures and relief for untold numbers of people suffering today as well as those who will suffer in the future. The President has made a decision to block such progress against the better judgement of the majority of Americans and their legislature.

Mykola, again, my apologies...

I think President Bush is justified in what he did.

He has had this stand on stem cells for nearly 5 years and during that time he still got reelected by a majority of the American people. Sure a majority disagree with him on this issue, but he still should stand by what he thinks is right and campaigned on.

The thing is that this isn't, I don't think, an answer to Myk's question (which is, by the way, the exact same question I was going to ask of everyone until I got down to here and saw that he had already done it).

The question here, really, is: Is there a single, cotton-picking, legitimate reason in the world why it makes sense for GW to think this is the right thing to do? Not 'is he justified considering that he campaigned on this issue (which seems to be up for debate, anyway)?'

Can someone, anyone, anywhere, PLEASE elucidate the point of view from which Bush's conception of what is right here makes sense/is defensible? I seriously want someone to explain it to me because I really can't see that side of the issue at all (and I don't mean, necessarily, to belittle that point of view by saying that--I literally just don't get it).

And most of those suffering now would not be miraculously healed if President Bush would have signed the bill into law.

Exactly. Now they have another 10-15 years to wait while we get a less ignorant president in office who isn't afraid to stand up to religious conservatives.

And he was not a coward to his base he just kept in mind those who voted for him.

Considering those who voted for him were also in favor of this legislation, he was a coward to the most conservative of his base.

It's ok to like the guy and still admit he messed up on this one. He blew it. His inability to look ahead and get smart on the issue has cost future sufferers of some of the worst diseases their lives. Someday legislation of this type WILL get through and decades from now when science gets a foothold on how to treat these diseases, he'll be remembered as an impediment to those scientific advances.

Hopefully his ignorance of science is the biggest of our concerns decades from now.

Nobody has any justifications for Bush's actions this time around? Come on, crawl out of the woodwork, you know you want to. How are we gonna play this one?

Writing as an atheistic, libertarian Bush supporter, while I applaud Bush for living up to his principles in this case, I am far more concerned about the loss of the science than I am about either the embryos or those whose lives could be saved by medical breakthroughs. And I'm not concerned so much about the science for the sake of ideas in and of themselves as I am about the potential that others could gain some unforeseen commercial or national security advantage over the US.

As it is people live too long and crave life too much. There's something unseemly in how modern man clings to "this veil of tears".

Am I correct in thinking that in vitro fertilization is used exclusively to provide children to couples who otherwise would find it impossible? If so, it would seem we are screwing with evolution in a potentially dangerous way. We are enabling the continuation of genetic lines that otherwise would have ended naturally, and we are bringing into this world children who will in turn be less likely than average to be able to have offspring themselves. I feel the same way about prenatal surgery which corrects birth defects without similarly addressing the underlying genotype. I have no problem with the potentially nonviable growing into adulthood, but I do feel sorry for those with whom they later attempt to mate. Parents are going to love the children born of such procedures just as much as they would those conceived and born naturally, but the energy and resources such parents will expend on them might, from an evolutionary perspective, have been better spent on others, such as their other children where prenatal surgery is relevant or nieces and nephews where we are discussing intervention via IVF. Anyway, the point of all this is call into question the practice of IVF with its by-product of the conveniently available embryos. And once the excess embryos exist, I do have problems with their utilization to extend the lives of what are, for the most part, fairly miserable human beings.

So, I guess I justify Bush's veto only in that it is consistent with his views on the sanctity of life, but otherwise I'm wishing a pox on the houses of both the secular left and the religious right, for I find them for the most part equally shallow and wrongheaded.

And I'm not concerned so much about the science for the sake of ideas in and of themselves as I am about the potential that others could gain some unforeseen commercial or national security advantage over the US.

This sentence is part of the reason I love Newsvine like I do. I am utterly amazed that anyone would think this way. I would never, ever, on my own, have been able to imagine that another person could frame this issue in this way in their own head.

pseudonihilist, I think you're f-ing nuts to think this way, but I (seriously) do not mean that in a bad way. I thank you and Newsvine for exposing me to your point of view. I--literally--just got smarter here.

Having said that, I still don't think that answers my question.

@CompMike

And I don't think we should throw away the embryos but rather put them up for adoption.

What? Do you mean adopting an actual embryo or IF it matures into a baby, adopting the baby?

And he was not a coward to his base he just kept in mind those who voted for him. I would hope that all politicians would do that.

"his base" is AMERICAN CITIZENS. He is the elected official of all Americans, not just those who put him in office. 70% of americans, at last poll, are for stem cell research. What good is a President who ignores the people? He may as well be a monarch.

Oops.

@Izhang
The reason I said that it would not come miraculously is because a lot of the rhetoric seems to suggest that President Bush some how dashed the hopes of suffering people today. But if the research will not come to pass in 10-15 years won't those now be dead by the time it works. I think a lot of false hope is being thrown around in order to push this research.

And I do think that we should fund to the hilt adult stem cell research, because it works and there is no moral question.

@indecent
President Bush was elected by the american people they knew his position. Who cares what a poll now says. If his approval numbers go down does that mean that he should resign. With his terrorist surveillance programs, where the majority of americans agree with him, does that mean most of the people who disapprove should just give up, no.

@indecent
President Bush was elected by the american people they knew his position. Who cares what a poll now says.

Wrong again. Would you please read what I wrote last time. In 2001, HE ALLOWED research to continue on stem cells. He was re-elected on the stance that he was allowing stem cell research.

If his approval numbers go down does that mean that he should resign.

If this was the case, he would've resigned in 2005. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I'm entirely for stem cell research, embryonic or otherwise.

I do not, however, think the federal government should be involved in this research. I don't think they should really be involved in any research. The only time they would need to get involved in research is if the issue being researched required resources beyond the ability of the states to provide, like the Manhattan Project, or landing a man on the moon. Bio-research is fairly cheap, and there are already several states authorizing the spending of state money on the research, and several states trying to set up large scale research parks and lure private companies in to research and develop stem cell therapies, genetic therapies, etc.

So, the federal government is not needed in this role. Bush is right to veto it, for all the wrong reasons. Let states that support this research spend state money developing it.

Let me ask you Mykola, exactly what could the federal government bring to this issue that individual states cannot?

Matt, If you were an elected official do you think there would ever be a time when you might vote in such a way that you felt was in the best interest of your constituents but that at the time was not the majority view? Whether right or wrong, that is how I see Bush's decision.

So what made you vote for him?

You're doing a kool-aid dance on a steep precipice, chum. If you are saying that we cannot condemn anyone acting out of moral conviction, dare I ask how you approach the terrorist situation?

Bush acted on the morals of the fundamentalist Christians that give him money and power. Give me a break.

Mykola: Kool-aid dance? Interesting. You can condemn anyone you wish for making a moral choice. My point was that we all make moral choices and condemning someone for the moral choice, instead of it being a wrong choice is hypocritical. You can disagree, you can call him in error, but attack ones personal morals is a logical fallacy.

Why not express why embyonic stem cell research is necessary? Show us the data that proves it works? Unfortunately, there is none. Many private parties aren't investing in it, but are investing in Adult Stem Cell research. Why? Because it has proven results.

I would approach the terrorist situation focusing on the issues and not on the religious choice of the terrorists. I wouldn't go about an issue throwing around personal attacks against ones character.

Again, my point is to attack the issues, not someones personal morals as is evident here in the comments.

Unfortunately, there is no research to prove that *embryonic* stem cell research will actually cure disease's

This is patently false.

I don't know, I was just attacking a stupid, dumb ass decision to be a coward to the religious right-wing base.

Not really a moral dilemma for me. He blew it. He's a coward or he's damn ignorant of current science. I can't tell.

***side note: I'm so stoked that the Spell Checker corrected my misspelling of dumb ass as dumbass*** I got smarter today.

How are people going to know exactly how viable embryonic stem cell research is without, you know, doing the research?

These are embryos that're getting destroyed either way, and we have a chance to research the viability of using them to some day help other people.

How is that hard to understand?

It is only immoral if you believe life starts at this point, which is something that is debatable.

Something like torture, though - that has been agreed on by the world in terms of immorality. And yet, Bush was OK with it until the foreign allies started screaming about it.

Why is it OK in one and not another? Its immoral to perform research on embyros that are going to be thrown away, but moral to torture a living, breathing human being?

Put you money where your mouth is

Well I actually tried to, seeing as I pay my taxes and I expected them to go towards stem cell research. Unfortunately, Bush got in the way of that.

Hobson says: There is no need, nor constitutional authority for the government to be in the business of scientific research.

if that is the case, why does the government spent billions on the science to make more weapons, oh wait nuclear bombs are the result of private organizations looking to destroy the competition. Do you realize how much the governments spends on science anyway. Yes some of it is to please the people, but some of it is for the progression of human beings... why not spend some money on this... considering how much we spend on killing people. But then again, maybe that is the goal of our current government. Billions of money spent on ways to kill people, cuts on helping people extend their lives... state hospital cuts, no funding for stem cells, cuts in homeless shelter grants....

Oh wait... forget all of that, as long as ol Bushy prays enough, Jesus will help everyone else out, so there is nothing to worry about... happy trails

Well I actually tried to, seeing as I pay my taxes and I expected them to go towards stem cell research.

Why not take your money and invest in a biotech firm that is researching stem cells instead? At least with buying some stock in the company, if you are truly interested in this research, you can make money by getting a return on your investment when they succeed.

Unless a Democrat is in office then they'll raise the Capital Gains rate to where investment won't be so desirable.

why does the government spent billions on the science to make more weapons

The function of government is to protect the people. They are supposed to research better ways to protect us. Would you rather they stopped?

Do you realize how much the governments spends on science anyway.

Yes, I do. That is why I am happy they are not spending more. You should be also.

why not spend some money on this

Because it is not allowed in the Constitution.

Billions of money spent on ways to kill people, cuts on helping people extend their lives... state hospital cuts, no funding for stem cells, cuts in homeless shelter grants....

What you call killing is called national defense. We should be the best in the world at it, for when we need it.

The states, private sector and charities should fund the other items mentioned above, not the federal government.

Stewart said: "Oh wait... forget all of that, as long as ol Bushy prays enough, Jesus will help everyone else out, so there is nothing to worry about... happy trails"

Why the religious attack? Are personal attacks necessary? Why not argue the issues instead?

Why not take your money and invest in a biotech firm

I think the IRS would take issue if I tried to take my tax money back from them. You realize this whole line of argumentation is ridiculous right? Are you saying I can't criticize the President's veto because I myself don't invest in private sector stem cell research?

How about I say that you can't be morally opposed to stem cell research unless you go out and adopt an embryo? Please.

Unless a Democrat is in office

What do Democrats have to do with this? You bemoan people bashing Bush in unrelated topics and yet you yourself can't resist an off topic cheap shot.

You realize this whole line of argumentation is ridiculous right? Are you saying I can't criticize the President's veto because I myself don't invest in private sector stem cell research?

I don't think that is being communicated. I think what is being communicated is that if you really think this is that profound an issue, then give money to the firms doing the research. They will take your money too.

if you really think this is that profound an issue

I don't think any of us are losing sleep over this. Unless you have diabetes or some other disease that stem cells may hold a cure for.

If you think the majority of Americans are "puffed-up, melodramatic cry-babies", then you are welcome to present an actual argument for vetoing this bill. One that goes further than "it's not in the Constitution", because if that were the case, Bush should've vetoed the last stem cell bill, as well as countless other spending bills.

then you are welcome to present an actual argument for vetoing this bill.

An argument has been presented, you know the one about the Constitution not providing for non-defense scientific research spending by the Federal Government, you just refuse to see our point. You can disagree with it but you should at least acknowledge it.

No one is stopping anyone from this research. The veto is not a ban on this type of research. The veto just does not allow federal funding of this research.

No one said there was a ban.

But without federal funding, which is important to much scientific funding that is not involved with defense, the chances of the research getting far is close to nil. The research will simply move to a country that will fund it.

They fund climate change research, environmental remediation research, medical measurement research, life sciences research, geo-science research, Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing,....none of this is defense related.

One that goes further than "it's not in the Constitution", because if that were the case, Bush should've vetoed the last stem cell bill, as well as countless other spending bills.

Yes, he should have.

@indecent, the only reason there should ever be a need for the federal government to conduct research is for issues that are beyond the scope of individual states (climate change) or beyond the resources of individual states (Manhattan Project, Apollo Space Program).

Embryonic stem cell research is not that expensive. States can fund it. My state already has funded it. Other states have as well. So it just doesn't need to be on the federal agenda. It's already being funded by governments around the country. There is no evidence that's been presented here that it is underfunded.

The fact that the federal government already spends money researching things they have no business researching in the first place is not a reason that they should expand those activities.

@indecent, the only reason there should ever be a need for the federal government to conduct research is for issues that are beyond the scope of individual states (climate change) or beyond the resources of individual states (Manhattan Project, Apollo Space Program).

This is about them conducting anything. This is about them funding research.

My state has funded it as well. If this was vetoed for reasons of "it doesn't need to be federally funded" that would be a great argument, Brian White. But that isn't the case.

The research will move to countries that will fund it more fully, and the US will again fall behind in science.

They are not a wedge issue.

Nothing is wrong with using adult stem cells. We've been using them for over 30 years to treat cancer victims suffering from leukemia and lymphoma.

Let's get back on topic. Tell me what's wrong with using embryonic stem cells.

Tell me what's wrong with using embryonic stem cells.

There's nothing wrong with embryonic stem cells or research conducted on them. There is something wrong with federal funding of that research.

If there's nothing wrong with it, why is it wrong to federally fund it?

Because the Constitution does not allow for the funding of medical research. Back to the old "General Welfare" clause and what it means.

That's "your" interpretation -- I see plenty of others on this board that I consider to be better interpretations.

My point was, why do we need ESCR when adult stem cells seem to do the same thing even better?

Or am I scientifically naive?

As I understand it, adult stem cells are nearly as flexible regarding their ability to grow into new things as embryonic ones are.

Rather, they are *NOT* nearly as flexible.

Well,

I think the idea is that adult stem cell research is limited -- we know what we can accomplish with them and also rejection is a bigger problem. That's not to say it's worthless -- just different

I think the hope is that ESCR will be far less limited in application.

There has been a problem with adult stem cells in that they are adult. As we get older, the cells in our bodies get less effective at cellular division. This is essentially the aging process. Adult stem cells seem to suffer from this problem.

I know that there have been recent discoveries of adult stem cells that don't seem to exhibit this problem. I don't have a link though and it was clear from what I heard that they had the youthful vitality/potential of the embryonic counterparts.

edit from above: "I don't have a link though and it wasn't clear from what I heard that they had the youthful vitality/potential of the embryonic counterparts."

That line of thinking is all well and good, and I agree with it, however, that's obviously *NOT* the case in America at the moment, and lots of our tax dollars *do* go to research. As long as that is the case, I'd like embryonic stem cell research to be a part of that.

lots of our tax dollars *do* go to research. As long as that is the case, I'd like embryonic stem cell research to be a part of that.

I agree that our tax dollars do go to research, that in my opinion, is un-Constitutional. That is why I view any veto that prevents the expansion of this type of spending a victory for taxpayers. I would like to see all of this type of spending eliminated.

But that's not "why" he vetoed it. You're arguing something that is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Until we abolish "all" federally funded research I can't agree with refusing to fund really important research based upon not agreeing with the idea of using federal funds for research.

(Especially when the "real" reason it was vetoed is because our President is completely out of touch with the American people that he represents.)

I agree that he vetoed it for the wrong reasons. But I'll take what I can get when it comes to un-Constitutional spending.

Agreed on federal funding kevinb. But there is no problem with states funding this. And they have.

Several states have authorized funding for stem cell research in 2004 and 2005. In early 2004 New Jersey became the first state to appropriate funds specifically for adult and embryonic stem cell research. State funding for adult stem cell research was already occurring in at least one state, Ohio. Over the last two years $8.5 million and $14.5 million in general revenues have been allocated to the New Jersey Stem Cell Institute, according to New Jersey's Commission on Science and Technology. In addition, a $230 million ballot initiative for stem cell research grants and $150 million in capital funds to build the Stem Cell Institute of New Jersey have been proposed. In November 2004 voters in California quickly followed the path of New Jersey with the passage of Proposition 71 to fund adult and embryonic stem cell research. The measure authorized the issuance of bonds in the amount of $3 billion beginning in 2005 not to exceed sale of over $350 million per year. If less than the amount is issued, the remainder may be carried over to the next year. In 2005 the Connecticut legislature passed Senate Bill 934, which created a fund to provide ten million dollars in grants a year over ten years to do the same. And Illinois Governor Blagojevich signed an executive order to create the Illinois Regenerative Medicine Institute and provide for grants to medical research facilities for adult and embryonic stem cell research. At the same time, the Governor transferred $10 million to this new program, and grants were awarded in April 2006. The Washington legislature also created the Life Sciences Discovery Fund, which may result in grants for stem cell research in the future. Planning for the fund is still in process. The state of New Jersey awarded its first grants in December 2005. Grants were awarded to 17 institutions for research on stem cells from embryos and other sources. And, more recently, the Maryland legislature created the Maryland Stem Cell Research Fund, which will provide grants for adult and embryonic stem cell research. Unused donated materials under this program may not include oocytes. As of March 25, 2006, the Maryland budget for FY 2007 included $15 million for the fund.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/genetics/embfet.htm

"Huh. You want federal tax dollars for research. Where is that allowed in the Constitution? It isn't...hmmm. Well, we can't do that then, can we? VETO!"

So, in that case, he was being unconstitutional in 2001 when he allowed the funding to go through?

So, in that case, he was being unconstitutional in 2001 when he allowed the funding to go through?

Yes. But his opponents only claim things are unconstitutional when it comes to protecting the country, not when it comes to spending money.

his opponents only claim things are unconstitutional when it comes to protecting the country, not when it comes to spending money

I hope you don't expect to get away with making sweeping unsubstantiated generalizations about Bush's opponents.

Yes. But his opponents only claim things are unconstitutional when it comes to protecting the country, not when it comes to spending money.

If by "protecting the country" you mean "torturing prisoners", then you're correct.

I think Bush spends too much money by far. But this isn't about that. Unless you're calling for him to stop federal funding of all the other "unconstitutional" research projects they fund, your argument is rather baseless.

I guess only the left is authorized to make sweeping generalizations. Sorry for stepping on your toes.

Bodhi "a bunch of puffed-up, melodramatic cry-babies! " You probably lack the perspective to see how well that describes you.
Now go back to being unemployed at your keyboard.

What was that sound...kind of like someone or something dying?

Oh, that was my faith in humanity.

I guess only the left is authorized to make sweeping generalizations. Sorry for stepping on your toes.

Are you going to stick to the topic at hand, or cry and change topics each time someone calls your bluff?

That was rhetorical, by the way.

You guys and your panties all in a wad...calm down and move along.

You're misreading the argument. Nobody is saying that embryonic is the only way to go. Yes, there is potential in adult stem cell research, but there is even more potential in embryonic stem cell research.