Should bush hav vetoed HR 810?

Question

Im really mad about bush vetoing that bill but what do u guys think i mean stem cells could possibly have cured cancer if u disagree explain y and pleaz a little more than cause u have 2 kill babys bcause wat r u gonna do with an embryo

i no some cancers can be cured already with a mix of chemo and a bunch of stuff

pleaz make it as simple as possible im only 13 i get most of it but its summer and im not concentrating hard

was there ANY evidence saying iraq has weapons of mass destruction and u might say but if they did many people could have died but people die from illnesses that might be able to cure. o yea the science budget is very low
http://www.federalbudget.com/

what should we do with aborted embryos i think a nice fashion componany might like it mmm....

Answer 1

I agree with you 1000%. Remeber, Bush & Co, are very selfish and don't think about the country as a whole. They pass Bills to benefit themselves! he really doesn't care about EVERYONE in the country's well-being. BTW, there's a cure for cancer that has been discovered a few years back and the government is hiding this info because with the cure, they'll lose money. Money from Chemotherapy, radiation treatments, lazer treatments and donations and money for cancer research. The government makes A LOT of money from this. Liars I tell you! But yeah, I totally agree with you! What the helll can you do with an embreo? Place it on your Desk?

Answer 2

There is nothing wrong with his veto of this bill. His view that the deliberate destruction of a human lifeform, complete with its own unique DNA, as part of a scientific study is unethical is a perfectly sound and honorable position.

This is the very debate of ethics in science - to what extent we are willing to do things to further our knowledge, and does that cross ethical boundaries.

To cavalierly toss aside this very deep philosophical question shows a callous shallowness of understanding of the terms of the debate. It goes beyond just what we can learn or what we could cure. It goes into the concept that there are things that may advance science, but harm our collective soul, our own humanity.

After WW2, the civilized world rejected the thought of using any results of the barbaric and indecent medical experiments the Nazi doctors had done on concentration camp prisoners, even if it may have advanced our medical knowledge. Why? Because it was such a wrong and evil thing to have done, to use it would have given it a legitimacy and respectability it did not merit. It would have stained humanity's soul.

This isn't quite as black and white as that case. This one is quite into the gray areas. It needs to be debated and contemplated, not knee-jerked. This is human life we are talking about, whether you care to recognize that or not, and we should not lightly talk about its destruction.

Answer 3

Oh for Goodness sake. Calm down. The president vetoed Embryonic stem cell research. WE HAVE NON embryonic stem cell research readily available from adult stem cells and from the umbilical cords of new born babies. There is NO evidence to suggest that Embryonic stem cells will give us an benefits so why kill more unborn babies. The president did a good thing. Try and open your mind for once.

Answer 4

Conservative Christian Ideals scare people out of human advancement. The only advantage we have over other 'beasts' is our brain. If we start to limit the advantages our intelligence gives us the other beasts will start to catch up.

I am sure thousands of years ago there was some caveman saying that if they use fire to warm their cave that god will be mad at them. There was probably even a cave man or two that died trying to put fire in his cave but not having a place for the smoke to go. This allowed for some justification to the conservative thinking that fire was evil. However, eventually people wake up and realize that advancement always has more advantages than disadvantages.