How is using embryos for research not pro-life?

Question

These embryos would be destroyed anyway, because they are leftover from fertility treatments. Why not use them for stem cell research and improve our chances of finding a cure for cancer, heart disease, or even AIDS? Isn't finding a cure saving lives? Why would George Bush veto this bill if it could save so many lives and these embryos are going to die anyway?

It doesn't make sense to me...someone who is pro-life, please explain.

Answer 1

I am Pro-Life as well but I too fail to understand the reasoning behind the veto. The only thing I can attribute his actions to are his religious views although I cannot excuse them.
It is my opinion that one's religious beliefs should have absolutely nothing to do with one's decisions while in office. One's religious beliefs have no place in politics as far as I am concerned. There is supposed to be an absolute separation of church and state in America and the actions of the politicians should be based solely upon the votes and will of the public.
As far as I am concerned, if you hold public office and disagree with making a law due to a moral objection or religious belief you should sign off on it anyway because it is the will of the people.
Public office should not be held to impose your views on anyone else and should reflect only the majority rule- holding public office should be a life of service and duty, not one of privilege. Religious beliefs and moral concerns should not be a privilege in public office and have absolutely nothing to do with the decision making process.
Our President should be held accountable and severely reprimanded for it.

I am all for freedom of religion until it involves our government's decision making process.

I strongly support freedom of religion up the point where it affects my standard of living and risks lives- which this veto has obviously done. It has unneccessarily put innocent lives at risk and there is absolutely no excuse for it. It's almost tantamount to murder.
Inaction is the same as pulling the trigger when you do nothing to stop the man holding the gun.

Answer 2

Stem Cell Research represents several problems to the Federal Government as well as morals and humanity. Yes the asker of the question is correct that stem cell research is capable of saving thousands of lives. In that tense stem cell research would seem pro-life. Yet there are several sides of the story that must be understood.

1) Stem cell research can not be sanctioned by the FEDERAL government because of a little thing known as the CONSTITUTION! The Constitution says that any rights not given to the federal government ar eleft up to the states to decide. That would include Stem-cell research. Although that is the most unlikely reason Bush WILL veto the bill.

2) A very important reason to understand is the rights of the parents of these embryos. Even in the fertility clinic treatments if the embryos are not used then they still came from a mother and a father. Even if they were to be thrown away after fertility treatment. The government and private researchers have absolutely NO right to use these embryos. If the supposed live embryos have no ability to decide their fate then the fate of the embryos rests to the parents of the embryos. They would be the "legal guardians" in a sense of the embryos. Therefore Bush nor any President or government has the right to pass law over stem cell research.

3) Yes Bush is religous, very religous. Yet so has almost every leader in the history of this greaat country. Religion, wether you believe or not, is a tool to assimilate a "code" of morals to follow in governing a country. Bush is only useing his morals in what he sees as right. Wether you agree or not that is the wa it is with almost any politician Democrat or Republican.

4) Here is what the governent can and must do. I am pro-life but i also believe in a some choice. Especialy in the fertility clinic example.
The Cans:
1) Tax breaks and incentives for researchers and research groups.
2) Subsidize research so the cost is lowered.
3) Try to put morals aside for the beterment of mankind.
4) Encourage the states to pass laws governing stem cell research.
5) Allow for it to happen on US soil where the premire research facilites already exist.
6) Allow the parents of the embryos to choose on a moral basis.
7) Make sure there is no abuse such as the harvesting of embryos for research.

IT all most be the choice of the parents.

The Can not's:
1) Ban or prohibit research.
2) Promote or use federal funding for research.
3) Force the choice upon parents to the supposed wasted embryos.
4) Violate the Constitution
5) Blindly pass legislation at the stake of morals that have driven the course of this great country for over 2 centurys.
6) Blindly say yes or no without pissing off someone. This unfortionatly leaves the chance of stem cell research progress in the US very slim.

I know some of you out there may not believe what I say. But all I am trying to do is paint the picture from both sides of the debate. The choice trually remains in the hands of the voters. If they want stem cell research then politicians who support it will be put into office.

God Bless America

Answer 3

First lets make it clear that there are several types of stem cells!

Embryonic stem cells are created in a laboratory by fertilizing an egg and growing the cells artificially!

They were never fertilized in a human body, but in a dish!

George Bush would veto it when he has executed more people than anyone in US History!! Bush could use a few stem cells to see if he can grow back some brain cells he destroyed being an alcoholic!

PS: Pro lifers are not pro life, they are anti abortion!! They aren't pro life when it comes to executions or war, so lets call a spade a spade!!

Answer 4

No matter how you look at it, a male and a female are both needed to make a baby, whether the stuff is from donors or parents doesn't matter, to begin an embryo and kill it in the lab is still murder, the baby should not have been concieved at all. These morons are playing God, it is not thier job. Listen well, I would rather DIE, than know a child died to save me when he didn't have a choice to live. I'd be in heaven with My lord Jesus anyway, it would be ok with me. But I"m not a murderer, never will be.

Answer 5

You're right, it doesn't make sense.

The argument that the Right would make is that these embryos shouldn't have even existed in the first place. They can't give you a good answer about finding real cures, other than they don't want to get into a situation where mankind would harvest embryos to benefit those humans already living.... That's not what's happening, but that's the way they like to paint it!

Answer 6

Just because the samples we have now are from leftover fertility clinics does not mean all the samples would come from there. Down the road, scientists would get samples from abortion clinics. And Bush doesn't want to pass a law that makes that possible.
If stem cell research was done humanely, like from babies who died of natural causes, I'd be all for it. But I couldn't accept a treatment if I knew they used abortion to get there.

Answer 7

An embryo is already considered a life in the eyes of the bible. All president's so far have been protestant which means that they believe in the bible. Therefore using these embryos for this would be anti-biblical.

Answer 8

The problem can be in the source of the stem cells. Many of them come from aborted fetuses.

As long as they are unable to get them from a murdered baby, I am fine with it.

Answer 9

It's because Pro-lifers are insane.
Just so you know, they also think that we should let the mother AND child die rather than abort the child so that the mother can live and possibly bear children in the future.

Answer 10

Because the goverment cant control it and garnish the money for it. Im all for stem cell research.