Should Bush have vetoed the bill about stem cells?

Question

follow up: Is cloning ok to help the already living?

Answer 1

The only reason he vetoed it--IMO--was to appease the Conservative Christians who helped vote him into office. I personally do not have any moral objection to using stem cells as research. Maybe, just maybe there is a cure for some horrible disease that kills thousands of people--adult and children every year. Wouldn't it be worth the chance to see if it indeed is something that will work? If we dont' do the research and development, we will never know. Just my 2 cents.

Answer 2

No Mr. Bush has singlehandedly consigned the United States to the status of ignorant backwater in the cield of stem cells. This technology will help in the fight to cure degerative mental disease, heart therapy, nerve regeneration to restore paralysed or severed nerves, cancer research, etc. etc. In other words we have kissed our lead in medical research goodby. Many scientists and several companies have already moved to Great Britain. Otehr countries like Israel, South Korea, China and a few countries in Europe are alredy pulling ahead. We will have to pay them royalties for patented new drugs and medical devices, etc. Money that could have better spent helping American companies to make income and also to put into further research.
All that to chase a few religious votes. Sell the countries medical future for the expediency of politics.
The 70 odd stem cells that Mr. bush allowed are mostly dead, and few (between 7 and 10), are contaminated with mouse proteins. (which was necessary when the bill was passed, but no longer,), the science & the technology has left the U.S. behind.
We will have to wait until Mr. Bush leaves the White House in 2008.
The veto may foster a technological disaster.
Dan.

Answer 3

No. A man who wages war and subsequently claims that he is against "destroying life to save life" is a hypocrite. Surrounding himself with infants during the press announcement of the veto was a cheap attempt to divert attention away from his blatant double standards, and an exploitation of children who had no choice in being used in this manner.

Since there is no way to reason with hypocrites using logic, one sensible solution would be to find a way to develop stem cells without using embryonic tissue and without harming tissue donors. In this way no living being would be harmed, and moral issues with such a course of action would be more easily exposed as fatuous. Also, I suspect that donors would be readily available. After all, at least 50% of the people in this country are decent, caring human beings.

Answer 4

he's been in office for 6 years now and this is the only thing he veto's. something that will help people? I'm divided on stem cell research myself, but if it would help millions of people to become healthy then go ahead, maybe one day some of us will need some kind of help like this...

Answer 5

iif the cells are given with out the intent of life except that the could be manipulated in such a way that they could help ease life what is wrong with it. let us think of giving blood technically I would be giving up living cells from my self this would save someones life. this is considered a deed that a comrade should do however if I jerk off in a cup and my excretion is met with an egg of a woman of like mind or of lower class giving reason that someone would commit such acts. We have on our own deriveres licence are you a organ donar or not that is accepted
but a single cell that you sould be willing to donate is no longer accepted I never intend for that particular sperm to have its own life but to extend the life of mtself or others but thats mg choice the preadent has neve jerked off by the repu lican deffinkiton any expulsio of dna ubless it is conducive to a child it is a sin

Answer 6

No, I do not feel he should have vetoed it. The bill wasn't to consider fetus farming, or anything grotesque of that nature...it was to use the fetuses that will be destroyed as medical waste for good, rather than turning them in to fertilizer. The fetuses that would have been used are those that were fertilized for artificial implantation, but then not used. They will be destroyed anyway...they should have been used for the good of mankind, rather than as a political pocket chip. *sigh*

Answer 7

Didn;t you see Star Wars 2? It starts out as all fun and games, until someone raises a clone army.

Answer 8

Yes, No
More time/money should be put into adult stem-cell research, which has already had HUGE success!! Ever heard of Bone Marrow Transplant? That's stem cells, my friend!!

Much Love!!

Answer 9

G*d blesses the womb that people will be born. G*d is the giver of life.
No. The harvesting of body parts from the living is wrong.
Using baby imbriobes is wrong for they are the living.
Gen 49:25 [Even] by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb:
Isa 66:9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut [the womb]? saith thy God
Luk 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
Luk 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed [art] thou among women, and blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb.
G*d blesses the womb that people will be born. G*d is the giver of life.

Answer 10

Anything he does or has done has set America back to the stone ages!! The biggest Idiot alive right now!!!!