Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill

By TChris, Section
Posted on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 12:15:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Bump and Update(TL): Bush has vetoed the stem cell research bill, exercising the first veto of his presidency.

Action Alert: Sign this petition by Progress Now .

Override the President's veto of HR 810, Stem cell research support

More than one year ago, the House of Representatives passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (H.R. 810). This bill would override President Bush's 2001 decision to limit federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and take the first step toward providing potential cures for many debilitating diseases including Parkinson's and diabetes.

Unfortunately, despite the support of 72% of Americans and overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress, President Bush used the first veto of his term against this life saving research. We urge the US Congress to step in and override the President's veto. Doing so would truly demonstrate compassion for the largest number of Americans.

********
Original Post

by TChris
Stem Cell Bill Passes Senate, Awaits Veto

George "The Decider" Bush must now decide whether to use the first veto of his presidency (after 141 threats) to dash the hopes of the disabled and diseased that stem cell research might pave the way to their recoveries. As expected, the Senate voted in favor of expanded stem cell research. Also as expected, the margin -- 63-37 -- was short of the two-thirds majority it would take to override the president's promised veto.

The president left little doubt he would reject the bill despite late appeals on its behalf from fellow Republicans Nancy Reagan and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The president argues that taking stem cells from an embryo that is likely to be discarded anyway constitutes murder. There is, of course, no law that would punish someone for murder for discarding an embryo, but The Decider has never been a stickler for the law.

Senate supporters of the bill likened that logic to opposition suffered by Galileo, Christopher Columbus and others who were rebuked in their time but vindicated later.

Ben Nelson was the only Democrat to vote against the bill, while 19 Republicans voted for it.

Mary Tyler Moore, after meeting with Sen. Frist, offerred a questionable assessment of the president:

"This is an intelligent human being with a heart, and I don't see how much longer he can deny those aspects of himself," she said.

How much longer can he avoid showing any evidence of those attributes to the public?

< Federal Judge: Prisoners Have Abortion Rights | Israel- Lebanon Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill | 47 comments (47 topical)

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#1)
by Dadler on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 03:24:30 PM EST

Bush's position: the sacred American Tax Dollar should not be used to keep fertility clinic frozen embryos from being thrown in the trash. He equates the trash can with progress and the life-saving research with murder. THIS is what you call fundamentalist extremism in action in our government. His veto on this will make LESS than no sense to me. As relentlessly ass-dumb as the guy is, this really just seems TOO stupid for him to veto. But I guess not. Reverse evolution in action. An infuriatingly sad day for our national priorities. Or ANOTHER infuriatingly sad day, I should say. And for those in need of this research, and our our leadership in it.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#3)
by roy on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 04:55:12 PM EST

Dadler, Do you donate any money toward stem cell research?

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#4)
by Dadler on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 05:28:34 PM EST

Narius, Running from my own government isn't my bag, sorry. I live in CA already. I can both donate and be outraged to action the federal route. We have a federal government, and it's our duty as citizens to see, especially on an issue a f'ing crystal clear as this, that this government invests in things THAT ARE WORTH INVESTING IN and for which the government's largesses as respresenting all of us CAN MAKE THE GREATEST IMPACT FOR ALL OF US. Why not leave pollution control to donations, as well? Or labor law enforcement? Or disease prevention? Oh wait, scratch that last one. Roy, Whether I do or not is irrelevant, the point is that this veto is beyond all possible reason. This kind of fundamentalist extremism in government encroaching on science, and it's associate lack of any sane logic, is something none of us should accept. We are not children to be lead by Pastor George. He works for US, not the other way around. Even though he doesn't think so.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#6)
by jondee on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 06:57:44 PM EST

The pandering punk plays a little too fast and loose with some lives for me to even buy his "sanctity of life" shtick. Another bone for the still-pissed-off-about-the-civil rights act and collateral-damage-aint-life crowd.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#7)
by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 07:37:18 PM EST

LOL, talk about having NO facts straight. The U.S. govt. is the biggest funder of SSR in the world.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#8)
by Dadler on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 11:09:38 PM EST

Muddy, Put your assertion in some kind of context, please, with perhaps a link or two to some factual info. Also, whatever we spend on tangentially funding right now aside, do you think this veto is a good thing? I also recall we seem to spend more per capita on health care, and we're no better off healthwise. Numbers can tell many stories. I just want to know in THIS case the numbers you refer to and the story you think they tell.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#9)
by Dadler on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 11:17:17 PM EST

Narius, Too fatalistic for me. There's no excuse for the feds here. And that can't be excused. This isn't a state issue at all to me. It's an issue of NATIONAL HEALTH. Proud of my state, but my country can do better. And Bush can and should be justifiably fried in public for this, lambasted, rhetorically tarred and feathered, the subject of an endless stream of political ads from now until November and beyond. He should be clearly, satirically, sadly, made out as the blind extremist and fundamentalist he is at heart here.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#10)
by Dadler on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 11:22:51 PM EST

Add Narius, ...As should those in Congress who will most likely be keeping this moronic veto from being overridden. This is an issue without an iota of the controversy of Iraq and the like, and because of that the opposition party should have a political field day with it. Will they? Wouldn't surprise me if it didn't happen, with their lack of imagination in the past. But this issue is SUCH a no-brainer, if the Dems can't roll this one into some gold then Howard Dean can take a flying leap.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#11)
by Slado on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 07:05:26 AM EST

Dadler, There is a way for you to fix this. Win an election for once. Bush is the president fair and square. He gets to veto what he wants. He believes that there is a better way so he will veto this bill. Tough. Maybe Rudy Gulliani or John McCain will let this pass in 3 years when they're president. We'll see. The facts are the "promise" of breakthroughs doesn't outweigh the moral argument against using embrionic stem cells at this point for Mr. President. Since he's the president he get to make the call.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#12)
by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 07:57:17 AM EST

Muddy, Though the U.S. spends more money on SCR than any country in the world, we are unable to do the kind of meaningful research being done in Asia, U.K., Israel, and Germany, to name a few. We publish quite a bit but because our scientists are restricted to a very few lines, our research really isn't cutting edge. Slado, Many, many embryos are destroyed every year by clinics. They're thrown out. Why not use those embryos to cure terrible, debilitating diseases instead of just throwing them away? I don't see the moral logic.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#13)
by desertswine on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:04:22 AM EST

But, but stem cells are cute, tiny, little people. Oh, wait a minute, Soylent Green was people.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#14)
by Dadler on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:11:27 AM EST

Slado, That you cannot acknowledge the last two presidential elections have been riddled with scandal and uncertainty, I can't respect that. Show me you can at least CONSIDER the reality that brought us the disgrace in Florida in 2000, Ohio 2004; and the hackable, insecure, corrupt nature of our voting machinery and processes. Get all the info you need. Care to live in further denial, that's your right, but pretty pathetic for a free American. Now, bring up Kennedy's election from forty-plus years ago. And I'll say it was wrong and should've been stopped. That we have NO credibility in the world about how to hold a legitimate free election anymore, that's just inexcusable. As for Stem Cell research, address the topic and its complete lack of humanity and, worse, reason.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#15)
by Dadler on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:15:08 AM EST

Add Slado, And now that I think further about this, you don't believe for a SECOND this is a good thing, or that Bush is right. You're full of it. And Bush has NO moral issue here, NONE. He's basing his decision on the immorality of his own fundamentalist extremist beliefs, and inserting them into our secular government. A man who sends people to die in a war on a bald-faced lie based on his own delusions, dysfunction, and powerful ignorance has NO right to be called moral or anything but what he is: a failure in every aspect of his incompetent presidency. Be honest, you shill. Wink wink, nudge nudge, say n'more. Peace.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#16)
by Dadler on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:50:40 AM EST

And alright, I admit it, I suffer from a form of paralysis, treatment of which could obviously benefit from this research. Were Bush's loved ones in a similar position, I have no doubt his "moral qualms" would become moot.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#17)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:29:28 AM EST

Dadler, sorry to hear of your problem. Is there any possibility of progress on your particular paralysis through non-embryonic stem cell research?

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#18)
by Peaches on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:45:29 AM EST

I just read last night in this months Harpers that in a high percentage of avoided pregnancies using the Rhythm method the body naturally aborts the embryo. In many cases conception happens as the egg is fertilized, but since the women is near the end of her cycle, the body aborts the embryo. Is this a loss of life? Should it be mourned? What is the difference between this embryo and embryos used for stem cells from fertility clinics? Interesting ethical questions. The fact that most Americans support stem cell research supports my view that most Americans do not think life begins at conception. However, I should add that I also believe most Americans do not believe life begins at birth either, but sometime between conception and birth - probably in the third trimester.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#19)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:53:37 AM EST

Is this a loss of life? Should it be mourned? What is the difference between this embryo and embryos used for stem cells from fertility clinics? Interesting ethical questions.

Yes the blastula issue reveals exactly what the debate is really about: Controling women's bodies. No more no less. The tears shed over loss of "life" is at best sublimation, at worst a smokescreen.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#20)
by Slado on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 11:50:38 AM EST

Dadler, I appreciate your condition I really do. I have my own health issues and I'm lucky to be alive but a disagreement is just that. A disagreement. The research you say "can" help your condition is not verrified. It is a possibility. So is adult stem cell research and other types of medical research. If you can't acknowledge that there is a legitimate argument against the research then what's the point? I acknowledge that you feel the chance of a good outcome due to research outweighs any moral, ideoligical or hypothetical arguments. The president doesn't agree with you. I acknowledge his right to disagree with you. You act as if the science has been set back. The research continues in other countries as well as privately and probably with federal grant money. As for your election comments Bush won a close election in 2000. Fine. 2004 wasn't as close and no matter how many partisan articles you link to me showing that Bush somehow stole Ohio I'm not going to believe it. I have election results on my side. You have conspiracy theories and links to websites on yours. My kooky websites cancle out yours so were does that leave us? With President Bush. God Bless America. peace

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#21)
by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 11:58:16 AM EST

Dadler... This kind of fundamentalist extremism in government encroaching on science. They're not "encroaching" on science...they're just not funding it. Big difference there Dad... A man who sends people to die in a war on a bald-faced lie based on his own delusions And this again? BTW... the Earth is flat! You still beleive that BS too don't you? Never mind it's been proven wrong a zillion times! Claw... many embryos are destroyed every year by clinics. Good point...and you would think the abortion loving left would use this instead of asking for yet more from the government! Peaches... The fact that most Americans support stem cell research Not sure if that's accurate, but let's just say it is for now. There are plenty of stem cells available (abortions... pregnancies that have complications...etc..etc.) that we don't really need to "harvest" them for research now do we?

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#22)
by kdog on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 11:59:09 AM EST

The veto is official. Personally, I think I have more in common with a dog, rat, or monkey than I do a frozen embryo.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#23)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 12:01:57 PM EST

Hence your moniker? :-)

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#24)
by kdog on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 12:21:29 PM EST

I do have certain dog-like qualities:) But I was thinking more along the lines of me, dogs, monkeys, and rats having the ability to breath, eat, move, copulate, etc.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#25)
by Peaches on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 12:21:33 PM EST

There are plenty of stem cells available (abortions... pregnancies that have complications...etc..etc.) that we don't really need to "harvest" them for research now do we?

Uh-oh. I should have known the incrdible B-brain would call me out. Once again he show us lefties what an incredible grap of issues he has. I am in awe. I am not worthy of even being in the discussion with so worthy of an intellectual adversary. Isn't he smart, fellow lefties--erh , I mean fellow traitors, or should I say comrades. It was about harvesting. I am so ashamed. Thats what I get for being a leftie and thinking with my heart and not using my brain.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#26)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 12:21:47 PM EST

Personally, I think I have more in common with a dog, rat, or monkey than I do a frozen embryo.

I can't imagine anyone who feels any different. Do you suo?

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#27)
by Sailor on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 12:43:44 PM EST

Good point...and you would think the abortion loving left would use this instead of asking for yet more from the government!

aside from the stupid distraction of abortion, researchers want the ones created during the IVF process. they will be thrown out otherwise. bush is stopping scientists from using those. They aren't asking

Not sure if that's accurate

2 seconds on google turns up:

WASHINGTON, D.C.//February 15, 2005//More than three out of five Americans (63 percent) now back embryonic stem cell research, and even higher levels of support exist for bipartisan federal legislation to promote more such research (70 percent)

any other ways you care to display your IQ?

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#28)
by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 12:44:34 PM EST

To see the stem cell debate explained with visuals and how the political argument put forth by the President is ultimately an absurd manipulation of the facts...link here: www.thoughttheater.com

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#29)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 12:51:17 PM EST

Squeaky, I must admit I can't imagine many people at all have ever thought much about it...I know I haven't. An interesting and weird question all rolled up into one. Does an oak tree feel he has more in common with a pine tree than an acorn? Does the Mississippi feel she has more in common with my bathroom faucet than a raindrop? Does cpinva feel he has more in common with other white-collar professionals than dumb poor people? (oops, mixing threads) Why is there air? Sure, I guess I feel I have more in common with another fully-developed, born mammal than an embryo. Where that takes us, I have no idea...

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#30)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 01:00:21 PM EST

suo-Empathy is how the fundies are framing this issue. Perhaps you haven't thought about the issue, that is fair albeit surprising, but to reply with a bunch of non-sequiturs suggesting that empathy is peripheral to the issue is silly at best, or, simply dishonest.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#31)
by Sailor on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 01:04:23 PM EST

"why is there air?" - because without it we'd have to breathe peanut butter - Bill Cosby BTW, these aren't embryos, they are embryonic stem cells from a blastocyst. You could put a thousand of them in a glass of water a barely see the difference.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#32)
by Dadler on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 01:26:34 PM EST

What a fundamentalist extremist. As if that tiny number of children born from discarded embryos overrides the greater good to thousands, millions. The same extremist logic that has Israel pulling an Iraq in Lebanon, or another Lebanon in Lebanon. The complete and unexamined moral vacancy of this man, who believes he is SO moral on this issue, is staggering in its childish level of logic. No one was insisting EVERY embryo not to be fertilized be used for research. As if it's not possible to make embryos available for both purposes. Insane. If there's no difference between an embryo and a person, why do they treat BORN children in need with such neglect and contempt? And if the issue is the taking of innocent life (which it isn't -- a microscopic cell cluster and a living, breathing fully human being), then why does he support, by excusing, the taking of innocent life in the hope that we'll make the middle east a "better" place? He's saying the government can't fund the destruction of EMBRYOS for future good, but it CAN fund the destruction of REAL HUMAN BEINGS for an even LESS certain human good. I'll say it again, were one of his loved ones in need, his belief would crumble in the face of human reality. The guy couldn't find his nose with a head cold and a case of Kleenex. He's as moral as a flea. But sucks more blood. Can't even talk joke anymore. It's just stupid and senseless and so bereft of reason or logic. His belief in the literal afterlife is what's behind this. His religious fundamentalist extremism. And it's absolute lack of humane logic. And now it's government policy. I'll be nice and only say, as Woody Allen did in Annie Hall, "What I wouldn't give for a large sock full of horse manure". Pummel him with it.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#33)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 01:27:51 PM EST

To blow up basketballs. Bill Cosby
silly at best, or dishonest.
You are even more cynical than I Squeaky. Could it be possible that you are quite taken with the issue and others are less so? Anyway,
Where do stem cells come from? Pluripotent stem cells are isolated from human embryos that are a few days old.
An embryo is an impregnated egg that has divided at least once. The "few days old embryo" is destroyed in taking the stem cells. Some, reasonably enough in my eyes, feel "few days old embryos" are human life, so destroying them is wrong. Others, also reasonably enough in my eyes, feel "few days old embryos" are not human life, so destroying them is not wrong. To me it has everything to do with how you define human life, but I guess I shold do some reading up on the fundie empathy angle.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#34)
by Dadler on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 01:39:57 PM EST

BB, Yes, I'd say I still believe it the war in Iraq is a murderous fiasco gotten into stupidly on a pack of deluded lies. With all due human respect, only Americans lacking in the most basic level of reasoning could view Iraq and how it was gotten into with the rosy lenses you apparently do. I don't need to make the earth-is- flat shots, I have the historical record. You are under the impression that you do, as well, and the gap between our beliefs here is so staggeringly huge as to be beyond depressing to me. Sorry, Iraq EXISTS, the record of lies and distortions and delusions that got us there EXIST. The administrations willful ignoring of post-war planning EXISTS and we are suffering from it to this day. What doesn't exist is proof Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, with WMD of any reasonable kind, or with anything approaching a credible threat to our nation. I just cannot understand your notion that it has benefited anyone. The middle east is chaos and we have NO credibility as diplomatically competent, or even concerned. The same fundamentalism that informs Bush certainly informs him on Israel, and I have no doubt, deep down, that his twisted mind thinks he has to support Israel as he does because God wants him to so the rapture can happen, so he can go to heaven. And that frightens me. As for stem cells, the American government's policy, in opposition to 75% of the American Public, is now based ENTIRELY on Bush's fundamentalist extremism. A CONSERVATIVE CONGRESS passed this. He is using his personal RELIGIOUS fundamentalism to MAKE supposedly secular government policy.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#35)
by Johnny on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 01:48:56 PM EST

And here I thought comservatives despised activism! Who woulda thunk it! What a pile of hypocrites!

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#36)
by Peaches on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 01:54:15 PM EST

His belief in the literal afterlife is what's behind this. His religious fundamentalist extremism. And it's absolute lack of humane logic. And now it's government policy.
Perhaps for Bush, this is true. I wouldn't bet on it, but maybe. But for Rove, who has advised Bush to veto this, this is just politics and appeal to the religious fundies who are the base of support for the rethugs. I am with SOU on this one. It is a question of when human life begins. I am willing to leave this question to the American people. I think Squeaky's view is just plain wrong and extremist. This has absolutely nothing to do with the control of women's bodies. For Democrats to stick with this position is politically dumb. Democratic candidates should all empahitically proclaim they are prolife (because they are-as opposed to the warmongers, defenders of Cap punishment and the slashing of support for people in need) and then decide when they think life begins. They will gain the support of most Americans if they do this. It is time to leave the distinction about prochoice and prolife behind. The silent majority blieves neither life begins at conception or life begins at birth. It is time for the Dems to reach out to that majority and sever the ties between evangelicals and republicans. I don't mean the institutional leaders of evangelical churches (they are in bed with rethugs and are only interested in their own power also), but the members--the rank and file. Prolife? I'm Prolife -and I believe in abortion (and I don't have a lot of faith in stem cell research-but, don't oppose it on grounds that an embryo is life). There are no contradictions--only well thought out beliefs that I believe I share with the majority of Americans--both Men and women. Lets vote on it. LEave it to democracy. No need to rely on the courts. Especially, with the fact that we need to win an election if we want to have some influence with the courts.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#37)
by peacrevol on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 02:16:05 PM EST

so we can spend billions of dollars annually to lock up half of our own society for substance use/possession in the name of a war on drugs but we must make sure we dont spend too much saving lives? hmmmmm... seems to me that if a certain president were truly morally against something like this he would push to make it illegal all together... either way...i dont understand the argument that it is a human life when it's only a few cells. my argument is that even if it is a human life, it is a form of human life that will not be remembered or felt. i know i dont remember my days as an embryo. but then why is it ok to freeze a human life and wait until later to let it try to develop? my views (for anyone interested)... an embryo, if given the opportunity to grow is not necessarily going to develop. this website indicates that embryos have about a 1 in 3 chance to develop into a living breathing human being. it seems to me that if it is ever possible for it to be more than a 1 in 3 chance that stem cells could help cure certain deseases it should be worth researching. i think about it like this...if you have one embryo that has a 35% chance to develop and use it attempting to cure a small child of say bone marrow cancer, then the benefit probably outweighs the loss. a person who is still capable of reproducing is saved by an embryo that may or may not have even been able to develop given the best chance possible. effectively the life of the young person with cancer is saved as is the life of all of his/her possible decendants. so which life is more important, one that has not developed and only has about a 1 in 3 chance to develop or the fully developed living breathing person who, by the way, might have cancer or any other disease because of some chemicals put into the air by his/her own government. maybe i just dont understand the position, but it seems clear to me that the president has taken some money away from an extremely worthy cause.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#38)
by Sailor on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 02:40:05 PM EST

suo, those quotes are technically inaccurate, but are a shorthand used because the changes take place so quickly and the NIH and wikipedia sites are for laymen. IVF blastocysts are only about 6 - 8 cells less than 48 hours after fertilization. one line below your link was "In animals, the development of the zygote into an embryo proceeds through specific recognizable stages of morula, blastula, and gastrula." Sorry to be pedantic folks.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#39)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 02:53:22 PM EST

suo
I guess I should do some reading up on the fundie empathy angle.
Are you joking? There is no need to read or study up on this issue. The empathy angle is that destroying these blastula or abortion equals murder. Period end of story. The reason that I believe that it is all about controlling women's body and not about the unborn is that the empathy stops when the child is born and not part of their flock. From death penalty to the war these people have no concern for humanity other than their connection to some mythical creature called god and self serving attempts to force other to live under their hypocritical fantasies.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#40)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 03:44:38 PM EST

Squeaky,
Blastocyst: A thin-walled hollow structure in early embryonic development
Definitions of blastocyst on the Web:
The preimplantation embryo
An early-stage embryo
An embryo that is approximately five days old
Or are you arguing that calling a pine tree a pine tree is wrong, it's really a Black Pine, or a Lodgepole Pine? Regardless, you may feel that the word "empathy" in relation to when life begins and/or a few days old blastocyst/embryo/whatever is of critical importance to this conversation. So be it. Perhaps that's one reason for your insistence on what verbiage one uses - because "embryo" might create more empathy than "blastocyst?" You're probably right. Again, so be it. The important point is that some feel human life begins at conception - whether conception results in an embryo, a blastocyst, or even a pedantist - and some don't. I'm not sure what else there is to say. You and I both tried. We see the world with very different eyes.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#41)
by ding7777 on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 04:36:13 PM EST

Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq: 43697 Lets add: 874 blastocysts reportedly murdered by military intervention

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#42)
by Sailor on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 04:36:13 PM EST

SUO, that should have directed at me, not Squeaky. And all of those are inaccurate. I realize it's a small point, but this is a discussion that calls for accuracy in terms. And once again, we are not talking about days, we're talking about hours ... and long before those 6 to 8 cells have the ability to be attached to the uterine wall. Which means bush just vetoed a bill that a majority of Americans want, that has the potential to improve the quality of life for millions of Americans, and the cells would have perished anyway. I can kind of see both sides to abortion, except the rich in this century have always had abortions and the poor have had back alley abortions ... or children they didn't want. Personally I believe that quality and not quantity of life counts. But I don't think any of those ethical challenges apply to cells. Especially cells that would be eventually be destroyed.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#43)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 05:52:02 PM EST

Sailor, wow, too weird. I thought all the comments were by Squeaky and didn't realize you were both commenting. My appologies to both of you. I just googled "embryo definition" and did find some references that stated that the definition of embryo now refers to "after implantation." Is that what you are getting at? If so, I'll accept the terminology, although if the terminology changes the underlying debate, ie., when does human life begin, I fail to see it. Heck, with the "new" definition, in a pregnancy, if it's not implanted yet, then I suppose you could say that that weakens the "it's part of the woman's body" argument. otoh, in the lab, as it is never implanted, maybe it's never an embryo?

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#44)
by aw on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 06:14:36 PM EST

I've been hard of hearing most of my life (Thanks big pharma!). I'd like to see stem cell research to regenerate hearing nerves. Probably won't happen in my lifetime though. On the other hand, maybe China will come up with the big breakthrough. What will the US do then. Stop us from going there for the cure?

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#45)
by Sailor on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 07:02:32 PM EST

Hi SUO, and apologies to all this is really pedantic; once the embryo (after the above mentioned stages) attaches to the uterine walls, and is accepted, it is no longer an embryo, it is a fetus. Like I said, things happen so quickly during those stages that most folks just use the term 'embryo.' But my main point is that the original IVF blastocysts would be destroyed anyway. So to my mind the debate is waste 'em or use 'em. And we're not using a 'person', we're using 8 to 10 cells that can be cloned for their cell properties that have the potential to save millions of lives. There are already more full term, squalling babies in the world than people want. Until I see these christians adopting those babes, I personally don't want to hear from them about stem cells or abortion or their death penalty blood lust or their desire to wage war. But maybe that's just me. And since some claim that 'spilling your seed upon the ground' is anti-life, (where do they get these jerk ... offs;-) then the constant discussion of 'where life begins' becomes not moot, but silly.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#46)
by aw on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 07:03:09 PM EST

I've had both an abortion and a live birth. You people are full of crap to devine what's best for everyone.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#47)
by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:29:23 PM EST

All of you are debating the actual ISSUE. Did it occur to anyone that the Republicans in Congress and Bush's White House all worked together to set the stage for a Bush veto on a bill that was "coincidentally" 4 votes shy of overide-ability just to hype up Bush's recognition of Social Conservatives in an election year while his popularity is extremely low and the region-wide Middle East conflict he helped create and perpetuate is spinning out of control? I know, that's such a far-fetched idea. We all know that Senators vote their conscience on EVERY bill and that NO LEGISLATION is EVER just a farce meant to shore in support without any substance whatsoever. Someone stop the spinning train, I want to get off.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#48)
by squeaky on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 09:27:37 AM EST

I know, that's such a far-fetched idea.
Far feched? More like right on the money. This republican machine is honed like no other I have seen in my lifetime.

Re: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill (none / 0) (#49)
by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 04:25:37 PM EST

Hello, nice site look this: http://buyxanaxonline.bu.funpic.de/buy-xanax-online.html http://buyxenical.bu.funpic.de/buy-xenical.html http://vicodin-addiction.mojweblog.pl http://cheaptramado.ch.funpic.de/cheap-tramadol.html http://cheapfiorice.ch.funpic.de/cheap-fioricet.html http://cheapcialiso.ch.funpic.de/cheap-cialis.html http://makels.free20.com/makels/cialis-side-effects.html http://cheapxenical.ch.funpic.de/cheap-xenical.html http://makels.free20.com/makels/cialis-side-effects.html http://mihunk.free20.com/mihunk/fioricet-order.html http://buyxenicalon.bu.funpic.de/buy-xenical-online.html http://cheapfiorice.ch.funpic.de/cheap-fioricet.html http://vicodins.mojweblog.pl http://tramadol-hcls.mojweblog.pl http://cheapxenical.ch.funpic.de/cheap-xenical.html http://makels.free20.com/makels/cialis-side-effects.html http://buyxenicalon.bu.funpic.de/buy-xenical-online.html http://vicodins.mojweblog.pl http://sunook.free20.com/sunook/cialis-sample.html http://makels.free20.com/makels/cialis-side-effects.html http://buyxanaxonline.bu.funpic.de/buy-xanax-online.html http://buyxanaxonline.bu.funpic.de/buy-xanax-online.html http://tramadols.mojweblog.pl http://cheapcialiso.ch.funpic.de/cheap-cialis.html http://cheapvicodin.ch.funpic.de/cheap-vicodin.html http://tungsk.free20.com/tungsk/cialis-levitra.html http://purchase-tramadol.mojweblog.pl http://fotskk.free20.com/fotskk/fioricet-online.html http://rienon.free20.com/rienon/cialis.html http://rienon.free20.com/rienon/cialis.html End ^) See you

Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill | 47 comments (47 topical)

Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal