Wasnt Bush a smart man when he vetoed that muderous stem cell bill?

Answer 1

No because speaking from a republican fascist point of view, the companies that own the embryos still have the right to destroy them, literally flush them down the toilet.

Answer 2

Controversial Aspects
Main article: Stem cell controversy
Stem cells are taken from a blastocyst, typically four or five days old, which is a hollow microscopic ball of about 150 cells [1], slightly larger than the period at the end of this sentence[2]. After 14 days a nervous system begins to develop [3] and it is called an embryo.

Blastocysts, used by fertility clinics for in vitro fertilization, may be destroyed after a couple conceives a child, frozen (for future pregnancy attempts), or the couple can consent for them to be donated for medical research[4]. But due to their own ethical dilemmas, many couples are unable to make a "dispensation decision" and as a result there are many frozen embryos in fertility clinics.[[5]] In a few cases, where couples have given permission for the embryos to be adopted, the embryos have been implanted and have grown to full-term babies (see Embryo adoption)[

Answer 3

NO, Spoken like somebody who doesn't know someone the research could help, and someone who is misinformed. One thing the administration doesn't tell you and the so called "liberal" media leaves out is that stem cells can be obtained using umbilical cord blood, That is (if you don't know) Blood that can be taken from a umbilical cord after the birth of a baby, blood that would normally just be thrown out. And umbilical cord stem cells show more promise then embryonic stem cells. And the only reason that Bush vetoed it is because if Stem cell research yealed a cure for alot of the diseases the drug Co's would loose alot of money, And GW wouldn't want the drug Co. CEO'S to loose that money. wake up Bush doesn't care about you me or anyone else its all about money to him.

Answer 4

Yes, this move was actually briliant. It is no secret that Bush does not have the highes aproval ratings. For a republican to be tied to Bush , that can be bad in '06.

Bush has made no secret he is against this type of research. So now he has given republicans a chance to distance themselves from him to help their chances for re-election. And he has stuck by his guns on an issue he campaigned on.

Politically speaking this was a win in every court. His veto doesn't mean this cannot come up again with a future president, this issue is not completely dead, but it lays a campaign framework for '06. It was masterfully played.

Answer 5

Smart and Bush in the same sentence is an oxymoron.People,do you know what you're against,or are you just brainwashed idiots? Stem cell research would be vital to unlocking cures for spinal injuries,Alzheimer's,and other neurological and anatomical atrocities. And it is NOT murder.These embryos are vitro fertilized through donated eggs. They are not yet a fetus.Before you get on your soapbox and whine about something,have the good sense to educate yourself on the topic before you make a fool out of yourself. You remind me of that saying,"I don't know what it is,but I'm agin' it!"

Answer 6

I think he was. There has been allot of research on stem cells. They have concluded that embryonic stem cells are not as good as adult or cord blood stem cells. Just because he vetoed the bill does not mean that research is not going to continue. It only means that taxpayers will not be funding embryonic stem cell research. Private funds can still be used for the research.

Answer 7

Yes he was. The main thing is that people believe that stem cell research is using the placenta etc. The truth of the matter is they start embryos in a petri dish let them grow for a matter of time then disect them. Yummy.http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0201/articles/condic.html Become educated not emotional. You may be surprised if you read this.

Answer 8

Yes, but not because it was murderous. He was smart for vetoing it because it is a useless waste of our taxpayer funds, especially when private enterprise can still do the research on their own.

Answer 9

you're dumb if you think he did it to preserve life, the snowflake babies people have killed 849 embryos.

this looks like some extremely low-tech cloning experiment. when you "adopt" a snowflake child... you are entitled to at least six embryos. this site says that they have 158 adoptions with 99 births... that would be at least 849 dead embryos. it's in their faq.

i don't see that this is a valuable statement to make about the sanctity of life, but it is cheaper than getting your own fertility treatments. and hey, maybe that rich kid will be more talented than your progeny would have been!

Answer 10

Oh gee wizz he is God and like you,I worship every word he says. He is the most moral President we have ever had. If Mr Bush told us to eat a pile of dog doo we would right?