English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

...that are going to be destroyed from being used to help cure disease? Stem Cells have shown so much promise in treating disease. (e.g. Huntingtons, Alzhiemers). The only answer I can think of is he's cowtowing to the religious right, and the Republican Party. I honestly hope someone close to him never gets a disease he could have helped prevent as I have. Please, anyone tell me the logic behind Bush using his first and only veto for this purpose.

2006-08-08 05:34:23 · 12 answers · asked by GreyGHost29 3 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

This is for cincisweety, the question is not about whether they should be saved or not be saved. The fact is is that they r there. Whether I agree or disagree w/ people who donate, or have them extracted, etc. is not the question. The question is do we use the ones we have or destroy them. What about the stem cells from ambylical chord blood which many couples/people are saving in case there children need them for any reason in the future. What about those cells? And also in response to your other comment, I've never heard of people conceiving embryos for the specific purpose of using them as stem cells. Again these r embryos waiting to be destroyed that were extracted for another purpose.

2006-08-08 12:12:02 · update #1

Kathy, no one is saying the Governnment should pay. Do u understand that Bush made it illegal for ANYONE in U.S. to do any research w/ these stem cells. Better to throw them out than to use them to cure terminal diseases, right?

2006-08-08 14:23:47 · update #2

oh and Kathy if u think George W. wanted to allow the limited amount of research on the few strains of stem cells he did you're kidding your self. It was obviously an attempt to please Repubs.& consevatives and still show he was not completely ignorant. I mean they're there ,they going to be there in the near future. That's just the way it is. So lets use them instead of chucking them. Si' o no.

2006-08-08 14:50:52 · update #3

12 answers

The logic goes like this: it's better to stick to your "moral" principles than to do something practical and helpful. Therefore, it is better to flush these unwanted embryonic cells down the toilet than to use them for research. The other part of the logic goes like this: once you admit that a fertilized embryo is not a human being, where do you draw the line? To me, it seems obvious that a frozen embryo is not a human being in any way, shape or form, but I am willing to accept the fact that it is difficult to determine at what precise moment the fetus that such an embryo might turn into, could become a human being. Bush and his religious supporters do not want to admit that there is any ambiguity about the issue of when a human being comes into existence, so they would prefer to take the absurd position that a fertilized embryo sitting in a freezer is a human being.

2006-08-08 05:45:11 · answer #1 · answered by rollo_tomassi423 6 · 0 0

Get it right...Bush is the ONLY President that has funded any stem cell research, i.e., using the already existing lines. Even the Libs' beloved Clinton vetoed a stem cell research bill. Beyond that, stem cell research won't stop, it will just be done through commercial enterprise. What is wrong with that? Who says the government must fund all research anyway? And, definitely, who says the government has to fund something that has questionable ethics?

2006-08-08 13:51:12 · answer #2 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 0 0

I agree with the president that we shouldn't have FEDERAL FUNDED STEM CELLS, but not for the same reasons. I think what we should have in America is private people doing the research not having the Federal Government, an immoral institution that is just as bad as Al Capone give money to businesses. I am pretty sure on this one I don't think the founding fathers would be allowing government to give money willie nellie to businesses.

If there is so much hope in stem cells then private companies would be more then happy to use their money.

2006-08-08 12:47:03 · answer #3 · answered by Jason 3 · 0 0

Because conceiving embryos and then killing them for stem cells is wrong. Children are not parts they are lives. If you had children you would see that side of the issue.

2006-08-08 12:45:20 · answer #4 · answered by If u were wondering, It's me 5 · 0 0

It does sound like a contraction doesn't it? He has no problem sending living people in to war to be killed, but he wants to protect cells that many believe aren't human yet.

I think it comes down to a few verses in the bible saying “ I have known you from the womb”.

Religion and science are often at odds!

2006-08-08 12:40:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The only stem cells that have shown promise are adult stem cells

embryonic stem cells = alot of hype, but no cures

he is still a dumbass

2006-08-08 12:38:38 · answer #6 · answered by BigD 6 · 0 0

Because there is no money in preventing disease, only treatment and thats the way the pharmeceutical lobby wants it. How 'bout that!

2006-08-08 12:39:08 · answer #7 · answered by TheComputerHacker 2 · 0 0

It was something he couldn't get around using a signing statement, because it doesn't require any enforcement or allocation from within the executive branch.

2006-08-08 12:47:03 · answer #8 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0 0

Sorry, there is no logic to be found anywhere in the bush administration...they live in a fantasy world.

2006-08-08 12:38:31 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

There is no logic.Our leaders still believe in the Easter Bunny and this shapes national policy.

2006-08-08 12:38:57 · answer #10 · answered by moebiusfox 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers