Stem cell research...Was President Bush right in his veto of the bill ?

Question

Pleadings from celebrities, a former first lady and fellow Republicans did not move President Bush from his determination to reject, with the first veto of his presidency, a bill expanding federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

Nor was Bush swayed by two days of emotional debate in Congress, punctuated by stories of personal and family suffering, that plunked lawmakers into the intersection of politics, morality and science.



"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," spokesman Tony Snow said.

Answer 1

I feel President Bush was right in vetoing this bill. The bill he vetoed does not out-law this research. This research, using embryonic cells, is going on everyday and is privately funded. The bill President Bush vetoed yesterday was a bill to Federally fund this research.

There are other sources that stem cells can be obtained through, the three sources include:

Adult stem cells- are undifferentiated cells found throughout the body that divide to replenish dying cells and regenerate damaged tissues. Also known as somatic (from Greek Σωματικóς, of the body) stem cells, they can be found in children, as well as adults.
Embryonic stem cells- are cultured cells obtained from the undifferentiated inner mass cells of an early stage human embryo (sometimes called a blastocyst, which is an embryo that is between 50 to 150 cells).
Cord blood stem cells- are derived from the blood of the placenta and umbilical cord after birth.

An early stage embryo is an embryo that has been aborted. To sign this bill into law is the same as encouraging legalized abortion. As long as there is privately funded research and other sources for stem cell research, yes, I agree with President Bush.

Answer 2

Dee is an idiot, Dee, if you've ever spanked it, then you're almost as guilty as the scientist performing these tests. An embryo is a few cells, and you're killing millions of sperm each time to spank it to Ann Coulter. But anyways, last time I checked George W. Bush didn't have a degree in biology or organic chemistry. Senator Rick Santorum, a fine example of an ignorant Republican actually wanted the national guard to move in and guard these frozen embryos so scientist wouldn't continue their testing. That is analagous to moving troops in to protect the frozen chicken at the grocery store, after all, they are cells!
If this continues I forsee in the future people having to move to Europe or China to cure their chronic illnesses because those countries will be leaps and bounds ahead of us. Meanwhile, thank goodness we threw those frozen cells in the trash before anybody could use them to further science's battle against disease. These embryos are just as alive as a skin cell scraped off of your arm, so does the skin cell from your arm have its own soul?
I suppose if the Bush administration found out tomorrow that they could genetically engineer a stem cell to metabolize water into oil he would be all for it! Perhaps someone near and dear to Bush or Cheney will develop a disease or becomes paralyzed and will have to send them to some other country to get the treatment he had deplored! Even better, the country that has the treatment they need refuses because Bush already blew up thier infrastructure LOL!

Answer 3

the reason behind Bush's veto is that the approach quite typically used to reap embryonic stem cells contains the destruction of a human embryo. subsequently far, no President as enable tax payer money to fund any procedure that destroys human embryos. because the very actuality of even as existence starts remains uncertain, that is acceptable to err on the area of caution and guard what ought to probably be a human existence. further strains of stem cells are available: from umbilical cords, embryonic fluid, etc. it is not neccessary to smash a fetus to get the cells. (only more inexpensive) Bush's veto does no longer ward off the harvesting of stem cells from diverse sources. It does no longer restriction stem cellular analyze. It does no longer outlaw medical breakthroughs or new discoveries. All those will proceed unrestricted and criminal. It basically make certain that those those who believe existence starts at idea aren't to any extent further compelled to have our tax money used to pay the cost of committing what to us is a sin - the destruction of a human existence.

Answer 4

No, because the decision is being made under false pretenses of saving unborn life instead of the real agenda. The government should at least not hinder, if not help, with the funding of embryonic stem cell research.

You have to ask who's got the most to lose if they could fix any medical problem with low cost simple treatment like stem cells??? It's got to be the pharmaceutical companies who have a combined 2 lobbyist for every politician. Pharmaceutical companies are corporations who under law have to do what's best for their share holders not their customers. This means NO cures. Medical maintenance where patients have to constantly purchase drugs to manage their conditions are the highest profit maker and therefore the only legal choice for these corporations. These companies have so much money and influence that they can buy up the patents on cures for things like cancer, aids, and heart disease and sit on them. For vitamins and nutritional fixes, they pay to have them discredited because there are very few people who will pay the for enough research on non-patentable treatments like vitamins and supplements to over come the doubt the drug pushers have paid to create. They can't do that with stem cells so they have to take a political approach to slow things down and maintain their profits.

Fertility clinics actually create embryos that are discarded and/or die and this is not a political issue but embryonic stem cells are not embryos, and they are harvested before embryos are created. The fertility clinics help create life with the side effect of destroying embryos. Embryonic stem cell research tries to save lives by instead converting the cells that would normally develop into embryos into other cells used by our bodies. Fertility destroys life to create it while stem cell research aims to, and undeniably will, save life.

Answer 5

There is no problem with using umbilical cord blood to do the same research and some scientists say it may provide better results.

As for your question, yes he was right in vetoing it. It is right up there with black market body parts.

Reguarding spookbaby and the comments reguarding bodyarmor. You can thank the Democrats for that one. They constantly cut funding to the military. People have blamed Bush for that but ignore the fact that the Republicans are the ones who put the money towards bettering our military.

Answer 6

Mr Bush was televised in Scandanavia saying such silly things as"I believe in the sanctity of human life" then he vetos a bill that would save lives and supports his own war and the killing of our soldiers. Now he is fighting wars on too many fronts (I submit Korea and the bomb they set off and the war in the middle east for your inspection) and will make the US look stupid if we lose. And I heard a rumor that the draft has been reinstated. No basis for that - it is just a rumor. So I really wonder if he should have been re-elected for another term. I am all for peace but that won't happen if America goes rushing off to war for every transgression.

Answer 7

Bush is so wrong. The legislation he used his veto for was specifically limited to those embryos that would be distroyed anyway and only if the owners of the embryos agree to donate them to research.

Either

Bush is determined to distroy embryos that could otherwise be used for research

or the more likely

Bush didn't know what the legislation he used his veto on said.

Answer 8

I believe that Bush's religion is getting in the way of his politics.

What he fails to realize is that most of the embryos that would have been used in that research will be discarded anyway... why not use them for the good of mankind?

By the way (just my opinion), if Bush is so against murder, why did he send our kids over to the Middle East to go to war without the necessary armor and materials needed for their safety?

Answer 9

He is absoluty right. Killing inocent babies to prolong our lifes is moraly wrong. It is on the same order as the Nazi Dr. Joseph Mengele.

According to the logic of the above poster. Hittler was going to kill the consentration camp victems anyway. Why not let Joseph Mengele experiment on them for the good of mankind.

Answer 10

He is honest and has given you his reason .Hollywood does not run this country even thou they certainly try
You need to realize this is not a Clinton that goes where the popularity goes ,but a real man that has a moral code of conduct and stays to it