Bush and Killing! Can someone tell me why Bush vetoed a bill that would give hope for stem cell research and?

Question

possibly longer life for many.... But has no problem sending young men and women to Iraq to die daily. How does he reconcile that in his mind, I wonder.

Answer 1

George Bush is not very technologiclly oriented.

He lacks understanding in any science except those related to cattle and oil business interests.

He might have been swayed to allow stem cell research however, had the republicans facing midterm re-election felt more secure.

They do not however, and in order to rally the religious/ethical voters (the Republican base) and have a small chance NOT to be slaughtered come November, he was forced to veto.

Democracy is a harsh mistress.

Powerful business lobbies were denied and they are not happy either, but Bush has to cover the republican party faithful or else his own party would string him up figuratively if not literally.

Answer 2

Bush is an IDIOT. I cannot believe that anyone even as stupid as him can deny the benefits of stem cell research. It will make "physically disabled" people a thing of the 20th century. The research would bring so much light on the entire human civilization and I even dare say that it might revolutionize the world somewhat like what the Rennisance did but in a more modern and hopefully less violent way. Anyway, I still cant believe that stem cell research has be delayed AGAIN. Know what? Have someone break Bush's neck making him a permant paralyzed person from the neck down. THEN have him say:
"Stemcell research is wrong and immoral! We should stop this procedure which can save the lives of man and improve and heal the lives of many more"

Easy to deny scientific research when you're speaking while standing meanwhile another child who may not even be at the age of 15 yet is permantly disabled and will live his entire life in hardship because of bush's almighty intellect.

Answer 3

We're talking about embryonic stem cells, here. Tony Snow, Whitehouse Press Secretary, said that GW Bush does not support murder. He then followed it up by saying stem cell research is not illegal, that private companies can continue to do the research, it will just not be funded by the federal government. Here, I shall try to argue like the Rapture Right: Stem cell research is murder. Stem cell research is not illegal. Private companies can murder because it is not illegal.
The real science, however, say this; It all begins with the five to seven days after conception. This is the time period during which embryonic stem cells can be harvested. Most on the right believe that life begins at the moment of conception. So many believe that to kill the cytoblast (the term for the embryo at this particular stage) is amoral and should not be done. i.e. It is murder.
When a couple decides they no longer want any more invitro procedures done, the companies that do the procedures are under the obligation to destroy the remaining supply of cytoblasts, the very same cytoblasts that could otherwise be used for stem cell research.
The Rapture Right's logic on this subject then leads me to believe that it is better to throw life in a garbage can than to use it for research and possible cures to diseases.
The embryos are frozen, they have 150 cells, they aren't even embryos, they are cytoblasts. They already exist and the Rapture Right would rather put them in the trash than in a laboratory.
As for the poster who claimed Bush did it for ethical reasons...70% of America feel differently. When a leader makes decisions with his interests in mind instead of those of the people, he is dictating. Bush is slowly moving closer to the title of dictator.

Answer 4

In his mind, the young men and women who signed up for the armed forces had a choice: not to enlist. The unborn, undeveloped embryo does not have a choice to become a stem-cell donor for life-saving research, so we must decide for it that its only viable option is to become a human being or be destroyed.
I mean, even if he doesn't think that last bit, it's what he is endorsing....

The ethical question here reminds me of the trolley problem. I actually think it is probably ethical to use one embryo for stem cells if that embryo ends up being the one that cures Parkinsons Disease or Alzheimers Disease. Mainly because, if we don't, that embryo may end up unused and destroyed anyway.

Link to the trolley Problem... you decide if the case is the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Edit: Last thought: his veto only prevents federal funding for stem cell research on new lines of stem cells. There's no reason private funding/donations wouldn't make further efforts fruitful. A cure may yet be found. And it will cost an arm and a leg... since the federal government didn't fund it, they will have no control over it.

Answer 5

The last time the libs made a big stink because of Bush resistance to stem cell research, a number of those scientists admitted they had all the stem cells already that they needed. This is another stink about absolutely nothing.

Answer 6

ok right here is going...Embryonic stem cells are a similar ingredient as stem cells taken from cord blood, or perhaps stem cells on your body. A stem cellular is only a cellular that has no longer lengthy gone by differentiation yet. That purely signifies that it's not particular what type of cellular that it will likely be even as it matures. like the cellular does no longer understand if it is going to likely be a blood cellular or a liver cellular, and so on. So, what's the version in getting stem cells from an embryo you want to kill or getting them from cord blood? cord blood is drawn from each and every infant born contained in the u . s . to attempt for ailment, why no longer wrestle to have what blood is left over after sorting out to be despatched to analyze labs and under no circumstances kill those embryos. GWB, and all of his faults, isn't against stem cellular analyze yet is against EMBRYONIC stem cellular analyze.

Answer 7

He didn't do anything against stem cell research. He didn't ban it.
He just didn't want to force the American taxpayer to pay for embryonic stem cell research when so many Americans find it offensive. Most stem cell researchers don't think embryonic cells are inferior to adult stem cells, that research is still funded and continues.
Get your facts straight and quit the hate.

Answer 8

Oh for goodness sake. Doesn't anyone read around here? He vetoed Embryonic stem cell research only. We have plenty of the NON embryonic stems available. There is NO proof that Embryonic will result in any additional benefits. Read up on it, Get educated and fire your handlers, They are feeding you bad crackers.

Answer 9

He believes that authorizing further stem cell research will encourage scientists to grow cells that could become life and then use them for something other than what nature intended them to be. In this sence, he considers new stem cell research to be equal to abortion. I find that absurd, but that is what he believes.

Answer 10

One, as unsavory as it is, is for national security and for the betterment of the area over their.
The other is just plain murder of unborn babies. The world cries foul when the chinese commit murder of girl babies, but then turn around and want to kill unborn babies 'for science'. What is the difference there? They are both wrong and both are infacide. A fetus is a human from the second it is concieved. Ever read the Bible? "I knew you even before you were concieved"~~Jeremiah 1:4-5