Do you know what vetoing stem cell research will mean?

Question

Since other countries are working on this medical technology,
it means the wealthy will be able to fly off to a foreign country
for treatment, while the poor will die off.
Is this just another plan to get rid of the poor, esp, the sick poor?

Yes, I did see a program where a young boy was cured of
leukemia with stem cells. Progress is being made.
I think this will throw the U.S., lightyears behind other countries
with medical research. Very sad.

In France, a young boy was cured of
leukemia - PBS did a whole show about it.

Paul, thanks for the awesome link -
very interesting - from all points of view.

God Nose - we'll he's gone & vetoed it.
In the name of His 'morality' - not mine.
Because I'm a nurse, this is heartbreaking
to me.

He vetoed the bill with children around him,
instead of disabled people - disturbing.

Answer 1

I answered with this earlier, but I shall do it again. Tony Snow, Whitehouse Press Secretary, said that GW Bush does not support murder. He then followed it up by saying stem cell research is not illegal, that private companies can continue to do the research, it will just not be funded by the federal government. Here, I shall try to argue like the Rapture Right: Stem cell research is murder. Stem cell research is not illegal. Private companies can murder because it is not illegal.
The real science, however, say this; It all begins with the five to seven days after conception. This is the time period during which embryonic stem cells can be harvested. Most on the right believe that life begins at the moment of conception. So many believe that to kill the cytoblast (the term for the embryo at this particular stage) is amoral and should not be done. i.e. It is murder.
When a couple decides they no longer want any more invitro procedures done, the companies that do the procedures are under the obligation to destroy the remaining supply of cytoblasts, the very same cytoblasts that could otherwise be used for stem cell research.
The Rapture Right's logic on this subject then leads me to believe that it is better to throw life in a garbage can than to use it for research and possible cures to diseases.
The embryos are frozen, they have 150 cells, they aren't even embryos, they are cytoblasts. They already exist and the Rapture Right would rather put them in the trash than in a laboratory.

Answer 2

How many poor will be able to aford it? Come on give me a break. That is such a weak argument. The poor may die of as a result of Bill Gates and his buddy donating all that cash, most of it going towards global population control. Isn't it usually poor women having abortions, and not the rich? Come on, think about it a minute.

Will stem cell research really benefit the poor? I dont think so. I think the rich will always have the money to buy what the poor cannot afford.

Answer 3

Progress is being made in study, not practice. It may turn out that stem cells hold the cures to certain diseases, or they may have been a red herring the whole time. Sadly, both sides of this argument have been grossly exaggerated. Conservatives are crying out that hospitals will begin harvesting baby spines and paying women to abort pregnancies- nonsense. Liberals claim that Stem Cells hold the cure to world hunger, aids, cancer, and the common cold all at once- also nonsense. It would be very nice if we could all look at this rationally, because it isn't really that big of a deal yet, and may never be.

Answer 4

OK...even if we did the big stem cell break through here...the poor would still not get it. It would be at best a high risk, experimental medical procedure. And poor folks can't afford that kind of stuff. So a poor person with a funky whatever will still die from it as they have no money and can't pay for the stem cells anyway.

In any case...stem cell may not real end up as the big cure for everything, anyway...

Answer 5

First of all, most of you don't know what you are talking about.

There is NO BAN on stem cell research in America. All this bill would have done is allow federal dollars to be spent in the area.

And we do actually spend federal money on this, but it is limited to a batch of stem cells that was already in existence. In fact Bush actually increased the federal funding on research on those cells to more then Clinton did.

There is plenty of private money being spent on this now, and break throughs will continue to happen. In fact you libs out there should side with Bush on this from your twisted ways of looking at things, it would look like this.

Federal government spends tax dollars, better used for increased entitlement spending, on medical research, will will make BIG medical companies lots of money, on a new technology, that like all new technologies will be expensive and then only help the rich. I know you are to busy being angry at Bush to even think, straight.

Typical of you lib's though, private money, and the people of this country are completely worthless, only by the government getting involved can anything be solved. God its a wonder Henry Ford was able to make cars without a federal grant. How ever did the Wright brothers invent the plane without government money?!?

You are pathetic, just like those losers sitting in New Orleans waiting for the government to help them, rather then helping themselves.

Answer 6

Its not the essence of stem cells that is wrong. It's what will become of them if the wrong people use the technology. Its not a plan to get rid of the poor because the rich are in control here and can get doctors and such brought to them. It will set the U.S. back, but soon we will find something else to better spend our funds on. We just don't know of it yet.

Answer 7

Your information is a bit cock-eyed. There is stem-cell research in the states it is just privately funded because the current administration does not support it.
The U.S. is already years behind some other countries because of the greed of medical companies and insurance providers!
If you feel strongly about these issues get on your congressmans back and tell him what you want done!!
It's OUR country - WE elect the people that run it - if you don't like how it's being done GET INVOLVED!!!

Answer 8

If cures are developed that USE stem cells from embryos in other countries, then maybe this will happen. A few points to ponder:

I think the veto will block federal funds being used for this type of research, but not necessarily block the research itself. Since it is such a highly-charged moral and ethical issue, it does make a lot of sense that the federal government wouldn't force it's citizens to pay for something that most feel is morally wrong. However, polls show that the majority of Americans (60% +) think that stem cell research should be conducted. If the federal government truly represents the People, then they should follow this instead of following their own personal agendas. They are sent to WA DC to speak on the behalf of their constituents, not to ignore their constituents and press for their personal opinions to become law.

Stem cells can be taken from sources other than embryos. I believe the child to whom you refer was cured of leukemia with stem cells taken from the umbilical cord of his newborn sibling. This opened of a new pandoras box: Is it ethical or "right" to have a child for the purpose of providing cells to save your other child? Silly, really, since both kids would be loved and cared for. Every day families who thought they were done having kids find one reason or another to have another baby. Why not do so to help another of their children?

The embryos in question were created during the process of IVF by families wishing to have children who were unable to do so without a little help. They are the "extras" that ended up not being used because earlier implations of IVF embroys worked for that family. Tens or even hundreds of thousands of these embryos will simply be destroyed with other "medical waste". Thus, some proponents of using them are saying that the argument of "respecting life" makes more sense when you argue FOR using these embryos for research that could possibly save others' lives rather than basically chucking them in the trash.

To say that allowing the use of these embryos would lead to more abortions or breeding embryos for research is a red herring. If that is really what people fear, then legislation can be written that specifies that embyos leftover from IVF can be used for research, but that embryos cannot be grown in test tube breeding grounds for the purpose of research.

I, too, have some moral and ethical reservations about this, but need to study the subject more before coming to a conclusion about my own personal position. I suspect that many people who have taken positions--for or against--on the subject have done so prematurely and that they really need to study the topic for themselves instead of just listening to what others say about it and accepting what may be opinions based on erroneous information as fact.

Answer 9

I think that until stem cell research will have a better percentage of not endangering your unborn child, then yes, it should be vetoed.

Note: I am sorry to whomever said that it was not evil. It is because you are endangering a living human being, it doesn't matter, at the first second that the child is conceived, it is a living human being! It is called murder until they can use it and no endanger the child!

Answer 10

I have yet to see one cure from stem cell research. Lots of promises, but no real solutions. It's just another huge money bag for politicians.