what is your Opinion on George Bush veto the stem cell reseach? just curious to know how others feel?

Question

im a spinal cord injury and was very upset about it

Answer 1

He said... "As science brings us ever closer to unlocking the secrets of human biology, it also offers temptations to manipulate human life and and violate human dignity."
Let me say that the President is not devaluing your situation in this response, nor am I.
I think his position is widely misunderstood.
Stem cell research can be done without the expense of existing human life ( violating human dignity ). That former life that is being researched/harvested is not of any less value than mine. I am a diabetic I would never be at ease with the use of other life to research a cure for my disease.
This is a defining point in the long term because if we allow this - what follows will be a practice of inhumanity.
The President wants stem cell research, but not with the use of other life.
I for one am in agreement and think this decision is in alignment with human ethics and greatly value and appreciate it. I think it is right.

Answer 2

I say "top on!" Federal money should not be used to fund what's basically reckless, unsubstantiated analyze. Stem-cellular analyze is held up by technique of the a procedures left as a digital panacea, particular to remedy each and everything from maximum cancers to hangnails, in spite of the indisputable fact that it is quite only a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream, for which no actual info of its positive factors exists. Plus, at a time even as the left is dropping the talk on abortion--i.e., legalized genocide--this issue is purely yet in a special way of dancing around the pro-abortion argument. i imagine, in reality, opposite to their arguments, that if the bill had change into regulation, it ought to have opened the door to the practice of starting to be embryos solely for stem-cellular harvesting --a chance i'm positive the liberals envisioned with glee.

Answer 3

I am deeply sorry that he vetoed it. Without speaking ill of him, it would be ironic if later on in life Bush catches a disease and suffers from it, when it could have been healed had he supported stem cell research. This scenario will probably occur. It sort of reminds me of poor Reagan who suffered from Alzheimer after cutting federal funding to mentally ill patients, effectively making sure most of them land in the streets as beggars.....What goes around will come around.

Answer 4

It is the most sad moment I had because,in my opinion we can save life and we can do more with our stem cell research.I hope The President changes his mind Let's educate everyone about the benefit of stem cell research.Some day we can make our difference in our people life.

Answer 5

It was a fantastic decision. Bush said "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect."

I totally agree.

Answer 6

I think that he needs to keep his personal views out of government and what his best for the future of healthcare advancement. He cites it as morally wrong, well I don't agree with that. So much could be done with stem cell transplants. We have to separate church from state, so why don't we have to separate personal views??

Answer 7

It's all political because the research is going to go ahead in any case. IMO Bush was wrong to veto it, but his opponents exaggerate it's significance. Politics as usual.

Answer 8

The Reich wingers are going to lay their hands on the crippled like Ernest Ainsley and cure them at the union meetings.

Answer 9

Doesn't matter the drug companies are on board with it anyway. They just want to be able to have government grants for the research. The research is happening as we speak over this issue anyway.

Answer 10

It was to help appeal to his religious base. His religious base thinks stem cells are more important than you walking again. It's true