Seriously folks, with a president that has done more signing statements then all the past presidents combined, why would he further diminish himself and cheat us out of the fruits of stem cell research when so many people agree with the research? Republicans and Democrats both mostly agree that it can, and should be done within strict moral guide lines. Also, I might be willing to buy into the Bush is pro life stand, if it weren't for the fact that, that very statement makes me laugh, Bush, pro life...yeah right.
Let the fun begin....
2006-08-15 08:06:50 · 9 answers · asked by Anathema 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
If any cures were to come out of stem cell research, that would mean all the money from prescription drug companies would dwindle, and we can't have that...
2006-08-15 08:12:57 · answer #1 · answered by someDumbAmerican 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The president of our country deserves respect, he won twice in a row. I did not vote for him, but everyone I know that did speaks poorly about him. This country needs to accept the judgment of the president, because we are only getting laughed at by other countries for voting in a man that we talk about. There were many talks about stem cell research during his election. I'm not sure why everyone believes that he is so wrong with everything, when he won twice. As far as the stem cell research, I feel it would have saved alot of lives, so, I voted with this belief for another candidate. Next, election we need to all take a closer look at who we put in office.
2006-08-19 23:43:49 · answer #2 · answered by floridagirl2 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's important to remember that this does not ban stem cell research. Bush is the first president to ever fund stem cell research. 85% of the research today comes from funding from the current administration.
2006-08-15 15:36:18 · answer #3 · answered by JB 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the stem cells come from embryos. Embryos are living people -- the result of the egg and sperm uniting. Since a person is there, killing one to harvest stem cells is immoral.
I know the argument says "they'll be thrown in the trash" but that doesn't mean it is ok to kill them.
If there were sick or weak poor people on the streets, is it ok to kill them fore their body parts? I mean they'll just die and do not have a chance of recovering, so why not use them?
same reason, once a life is there, we should protect it.
There are no "strict moral guidelines" for doing this. ethical guidelines exist, but they already assume the embryo is not a person. It is a convenient definition.
In this case, human life, not just cellular life exists.
2006-08-15 15:15:51 · answer #4 · answered by JoeCool 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes the support comes from those moral Christians who see evil in trying to save lives. Besides Bush never vetoed one spending bill that came across his desk.
2006-08-16 10:18:54 · answer #5 · answered by murraystate69 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Jews want to do the research in Isreal and get all the royalties so they paid him to veto it.
How s that for a conspiracy!
LOL
2006-08-15 15:12:42 · answer #6 · answered by billyandgaby 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So much of Bush's political support comes from the conservative Christian right. He does not want to alienate these people.
2006-08-15 16:51:38 · answer #7 · answered by lottyjoy 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Read about it at http://www.wiseorb.com/articles-review-472-T-Stem_Cell_Research_and_Politics_%96_Back_to_the_Dark_Ages%2E.htm
2006-08-16 16:59:52 · answer #8 · answered by Ignorant 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because he is a christian and that makes him think he is god
2006-08-15 15:13:30 · answer #9 · answered by phillip a 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋