do you agree with bush on his choice to veto stem cell research?

Question

he is preparing to veto the proposed funding for it.

catering to his right wing base?

Answer 1

Stem cells are not grown from abortions, they are grown from the extra fertilized eggs that are laying around fertility clinics, after the couple has used the ones they are going to use. Bush had his twins using this same science. When they aren't used for anything, they are just destroyed. Just to clear up people's LACK OF EDUCATION ON THE MATTER. There are 2 sets of stem cells that were original, both unused fertilized eggs. That was about 20 years ago. Since then, cells have been propagated from these original 2 sets, and used to research many diseases and injuries. My brother's paralysis is one of those. Since the right to life movement was SCARED that perhaps us ladies would PURPOSEFULLY get pregnant just to sell our abortions to these doctors, they effectively blocked the research from being used. This sealed the deal for my brother to remain wheel-chair bound for the rest of his life. Since he was 20 when it happened, that is a lot of life to live sitting down. I pray none of these UNAFFECTED and ignorant people never find themselves taking care of, or becoming one of these people who would benefit from such research. As angry as I am, I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

seniorcitizen, why should I have to pay for this war, when I don't agree with it? He doesn't have to tax to support funding for this research. He doesn't have to tax for ANYTHING that he spends. He spends on deficit.

Answer 2

The President's veto power, if invoked, will not prevent embryonic stem cell research, but only federal funding for it. Private funding and research will continue. Why should a large number of Americans, who oppose embryonic stem cell research because it destroys human life, be forced by new legislation to pay for it with their own tax money, especially when other sources of stem cells have proven effective and there has been virtually no success from embryonic stem cells?

How do you feel about the taxation without representation? The members of the Boston Tea Party didn't like it.

Answer 3

I've answered this question before, from another asker.

I think researchers are taking the easy way out and barking up the wrong tree.

Their own research has proven that there is enough material for the study of stem cell research in the cords of full term babies. This is tissue which 9 times out of 10 is thrown out as medical waste.

Insisting that these studies must be done with the embryos of aborted babies, and with the monies of the american people is totally inappropriate. Especially when abortion is such a hot button issue.

Why not ask for funding from the government for options they have readily available? A very very small minority of people invest money in the harvesting and freezing of their newborns chord material. Others could care less if it was donated for the sake of finding cures to horrible illnesses.

Why not start there?

Because it might be more difficult, and it would impede reserch in other areas where they require partially developed human embryos, and if they cant gain acceptance for one, they have to fight for it on others.

Its a political game all around, and it has very little to do with actual science.

If they wanted to find and cure things as badly as they insist, they would find a more ethical way of doing it. Everything, even the medical field is about politics and who gets to do what because they want to.

Answer 4

People who call stem cell extraction "abortion" or "murder" are ignorant idiots.

Yes, stem cells come from fertilized eggs, but where do they get the eggs from? They come from two places:

1) Women volunteer to donate. They never intended to become pregnant, so the eggs would end up in the toilet if they didn't go to research. Is that abortion? No.

2) Fertility clinics where the women or couple voluntarily give up the eggs to research. Why would these people do this? Because they already achieved a pregnancy and don't need to keep trying, or because they can't afford to keep paying for storage or more attempts. Either way, if they don't donate the eggs, they'll go in the garbage. Is that abortion? No.

Only liars, idiots, and slime who want political mileage claim otherwise. Shrub is all three.


Additional:

"irishharpist" makes my point about ignorance.

Answer 5

Well since I pretty much have dis-agreed with Bush on 99% of his decisions since being (not)elected, this is again, in my opinion, the wrong decision.

Stem cell research can find cures for so many health conditions it's ridiculous that in a nation where abortion is legal, that at least some good can come out of it. If an abortion can save thousands of lives, wouldn't blocking stem cell research be costing thousands of lives?

I may be pro-choice, but I am anti abortion. I believe that it's no business of mine weather or not an unwanted pregnancy is terminated (within reason, late term or partial birth is another story), how-ever I believe that unwanted pregnancy should be the issue people who are pro-life should be working on harder than changing laws. If abortion is legal, and rare because of cutting down unwanted pregnancy, doesn't everybody win?

Answer 6

No. It's short-sighted and misinformed. With his veto, he is throwing the hopes of thousands of Americans living and dying from Parkinsons, Lou Gherigs disease, and spinal injuries in the trash along with the frozen embryos.

To equate this with the abortion debate is wrong. Have any of you actually read the text of this bill? This bill call for surplus embryos from fertility clinics that would otherwise be destroyed, to be allowed for research in government facilities. The current stem cell crop, which someone else mentioned, has been essentially rendered useless due to contamination. No one wants "baby farming" or "cloning", and those who bring that into the debate on this bill are simply ignorant.

There are different types of stem cells:
-Unipotent (adult) stem cells can produce only one cell type
-Multipotent (umbilical cord/blood) stem cells can produce only cells of a closely related family of cells
-Pluripotent (embrionic) stem cells can produce a wide variety of cells

The pluripotent stem cells, those from blastocysts (which is an embryo that is between 50 to 150 cells) hold the most promise.

The boy you see in my picture lost his grandfather (my father) when he was a year old to Lou Gherigs. The sooner we start to find cures, the fewer children will need to experience that.

Answer 7

Stem cell research isn't wrong. However, it's where you get the stem cells from that's the issue. Did you know adult fat has better stem cells than the stem cells found in "embryonic tissue"? Why not use fat then? Why does it have to embryonic?

Aborting babies is murder; therefore, I agree with President Bush's decision to veto funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Answer 8

No. He has twisted the facts in order to gain the support of the Rapture Right. The fetuses already exist. There need not be any more abortions to continue with stem cell research. Some on the right fail to see this. The fetuses will be discarded if they are not used and I find that to be such a waste of possibly invaluable information.

Answer 9

I love the way you skew everything. Yes, I agree with his veto of research using fetal stem cells. The research to this point has produced absolutely zero cures and no "promising" research. Whereas adult stem cell research has produced results with over 100 diseases. We should focus funding on the research that actually is producing results instead of babysitting dead-end pet projects of public-funds greedy 'scientists'.

Answer 10

I am a diabetic and I see stem cell research as a possible cure for it and several other diseases, he is vetoing this because of the pharmaceutical lobby. Not on moral grounds as he states. The pharmaceutical industry stands to lose trillions in profit if their treatments for these diseases are no longer needed and Bush is in bed with them. I report you decide.