Bush Uses First Veto To Block Stem Cell Research Bill?

Question

What do you think?

It's just a question, I havent stated that I was against or for it. I am only just getting opinions, that is all.

Answer 1

thats crap he should have passed it.Get bush out

Answer 2

I fully agreed with the President.
There are other ways then the fetus to do stem cell research. People should start caring about the voting before they rant and rave about how the President is "retarded" for the veto. I am not saying you just to some of the answers there were a lot of people that didn't agree with this where were they when the election was going on to replace the President? They must of been real busy that day.

Answer 3

However he may feel about this issue from his personal moral perspective, he is the President and such personal positions should not be part of his actions.

What he has done with this veto is retarded research in the United States which will allow other countries to get far a head of the United States in this area. In addition, this retarded research will most likely extend needless suffering and death of some people.

Most importantly he has demonstrated a misunderstanding of his Presidential Constitutional role and responsibilities.

Answer 4

It was the right thing to do. It doesn't stop embryonic stem cell research. Of course, he has already funded research on existing lines (and is the ONLY president to do so, I might add). It just stops funding of new lines. It also doesn't stop private companies from funding the research. Since when does the government have to fund all research in our country. That is not its job anyway, especially on something that has not had any proven value yet anyway AND since there are other types of stem cells that show equal value with none of the moral baggage that goes along with stem cell research.

Answer 5

He vetoed it because of his moral beliefs. Congress can override his veto. Stem cell research is being conducted in laboratories, however, it will not be federally funded.

Mr. Bush perhaps did not consider that the embryos wthat would be used for stem cell research are from in vitro fertilization and will only be discarded as medical waste. The "life" of the embryo is not saved. The "life" of the embryo would be preserved as a stem cell.

Answer 6

i agree with him cuz i'm religious and i see it as tampering with God's work. Also, if we do stem cell research to prolong human lives, what do you think the consequences are if we have everyone living to be over 100? for me, i see the social security system will be diminished because there wouldn't be enough money there to support everyone for that long. Eventually, looking at the extreme, i think more older people would become homeless or live in poverty, thus causing the taxes to increase because the working class would have to support them some form or the other. in the long run, more than half of the population would be living in poverty because not just to support the increase in age but also to make room for the new generations which would cause an overpopulation.

Answer 7

I think Bush didn't read the legislation he vetoed.

The legislation specifically focused on embryos that would otherwise be distroyed and only if the owners of the embryos agree.

After he signed the bill, Bush made statements that had nothing to do with the language of the legislation.

Answer 8

at the same time as I don’t imagine that stem cellular analyze might want to be funded by tax funds that became no longer the reported reason Bush vetoed the bill. the rationalization he vetoed the bill became because he believed it became morally incorrect. quite, it is an illustration as to the region with having technological expertise funded by tax funds. no count number what a scientist does some taxpayer someplace (who's forced to pay taxes) will be hostile to it. If technological expertise is merely allowed to be funded by the loose marketplace none of those issues will ever arise. Ryan

Answer 9

Don't you think it is better that the frozen embryos are tossed into the biomedical waste container and burned when the parents decide they are no longer needed? Heaven forbid they be used to give a better quality of life to others or be used to cure disease! That would be "murder". God would much rather have them incinerated than be used to help mankind. Right George?
Before long - organ donations might be outlawed. After all - did God give us permission to give away body parts when we no longer want them? Isn't that a little like playing God as Dubya and the other right wing Republicans would have us believe? Come to think of it - maybe birth control should be banned also. Think of all those fetus wannabes who we are preventing from coming into this world? Who knows where this should stop?

Answer 10

It is a hot topic for some people because they do not do the basic research to find out what it means. It is not using baby's for it. It is using the umbilical cord , that is normally toss into the trash. So why not use it, it is not like were are going to be cloning another Michele J. Fox . But rather cures for lots of problems that are facing lots of people out there.

Answer 11

I not agree with the veto. If they are going to be discarded why not use it. There is the arguement that it is wrong to use somehting that was morally wrong. Well the answer to that is we are using technology developed by the nazis in medcine today. I am not saying that is right or wrong but it is a fact.