• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

What if it could save someone you love?

CattleArmy

Well-known member
Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill
Wednesday, June 20, 2007

WASHINGTON —

President Bush vetoed an embryonic stem cell research funding bill Wednesday and called on Congress to put aside politics and support legislation that would advance science without crossing an ethical line.

“If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos," Bush said from the East Room of the White House, where he was joined by doctors and stem cell patients. "I made it clear to Congress and to the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line."

Bush's veto marks the third of his presidency and the second veto on a stem cell bill. Democrats don't have enough votes to override the veto. The vetoed bill would have eased restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research. Sources tell FOX News they expect an override vote in the coming weeks to fall just short of approval.

Alongside the veto, Bush issued an executive order on stem cell research to lay out the administration's position that it won't support new federal funding that would destroy embryos. The order will direct the Health and Human Services Department to conduct research into cells that could be used against deadly diseases.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid joined other Democrats in denouncing Bush's veto.

“He insists upon putting the politics of his narrow ideology ahead of saving lives. America deserves better,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “President Bush's veto is a setback in our fight, but nothing will stop the will of the American people to give you the hope that you deserve."

Senate Democrats might try to get another form of the stem cell bill through by attaching it to the annual labor appropriations bill, according to a report in the congressional newspaper, Roll Call.

Senate Democratic sources told Roll Call that Sens. Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter, the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and related agencies, agreed to tack the measure onto the fiscal 2008 spending bill for the departments of Labor and Health and Human Services.

That measure would expand stem cell lines available for federally funded research to include those derived before June 15, 2007 rather than the current cut-off date of Aug. 9, 2001. The bill would also tighten ethical guidelines on stem cell research.

On the House side, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., also lashed out at Bush's veto.

"The president formed his opinion on stem cell research and now he has America ensnarled in a political straightjacket," Emanuel said. "The American people see stem cell research as a cure to illnesses that plague their family and family members."

Bush needs to drop his veto threats and support life-saving stem cell research, said Rep. Michael Arcuri, D-N.Y.

"Stem cell research would give new hope to millions of Americans, families across the country suffering from life-threatening and debilitating diseases like Lupus, juvenile diabetes and Parkinson's," Arcuri said from the House floor before the president's veto.

House Minority Leader John Boehner released a statement of support for Bush's choice, saying Republicans have enough votes to sustain the veto.

"The president's veto today is justified for both moral and scientific reasons and it will be sustained by House Republicans," Boehner said.

Bush also won support from Republican senators who say other stem cell research is just as promising as embryonic stem cell research.

"Given the tremendous results that have come from adult and umbilical cord stem cell therapy in the areas of oncology and orthopedics — and, more recently, in cardiology and neurology — I am further encouraged by the possibilities these non-controversial, adult stem cells have to offer," said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio.

"In this tight budgetary environment, in which there is a choke hold on our domestic discretionary spending, we must be vigilant in the way we appropriate taxpayer dollars and concentrate our resources on those lines of medical research that hold the greatest potential," he continued.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, a 2008 White House hopeful, told an audience at a forum of Democratic presidential contenders that the legislation the way it is written holds promises to fighting disease.

"Let me be very clear. When I am president, I will lift the ban on stem cell research," Clinton said at the "Take Back America" conference of liberal activists in Washington, D.C.

Clinton said Bush's veto shows the need for Democrats to win back the White House.

"This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families, just one more example of how out of touch with reality he and his party have become," Clinton said.

Democratic leaders made the bill a priority when they took control of the House and the Senate in January. On Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent out an e-mail letter asking for contributions to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to help elect more Democrats so the bill could be passed in the future.

"By vetoing a bill that expands stem cell research, the president will say 'no' to the more than 70 percent of Americans who support it, 'no' to our Democratic Congress' fight for progress, and 'no' to saving lives and to potential cures for diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson's," Pelosi wrote. "He will say 'no' to hope."

Bush vetoed a similar measure last year that would allow funding of additional lines of embryonic stem cells. The third veto of his administration came on a bill that would require setting timetables for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

The National Institutes of Health says stem cells raise the prospect of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis and other conditions.

Scientists were first able to conduct research with embryonic stem cells in 1998, the NIH says. There were no federal funds for the work until Bush announced on Aug. 9, 2001, that his administration would make the funds available for lines of cells that already were in existence.

Currently, states and private organizations are permitted to fund embryonic stem cell research, but federal support is limited to cells that existed as of Aug. 9, 2001. The latest bill is aimed at lifting that restriction.

Public opinion polls show strong support for the research, and it could return as an issue in the 2008 presidential election.
 

jigs

Well-known member
if sacrificing human life for"science" is ok, then may I suggest Hillary Clinton as the first one we kill to get the cells?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
What people FAIL to realize is that hundreds if not thousands of embryos are destroyed each day ALREADY.

When cryo/fertility clinics are ' done' with a patient and they either have their child or decide not to continue all eggs, fertilized or not, are DESTROYED!

So what's the big moral hissy about.....why not use those cells? Why is there not a push to stop this practice in clinics and thrown the clients in jail who authorize their cells/embryos destroyed???? Why not stone them??? This is the mentality of this furor.

Just one days worth would last for decades in research.


jigs...answer the question.
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
jigs said:
if sacrificing human life for"science" is ok, then may I suggest Hillary Clinton as the first one we kill to get the cells?

The point I think many fail to see is that the embroys are going to be destroyed anyway. When couples face fertility problems often they will store the embroys and think that one day they will use them. However sometimes they don't and evidentally it costs to store them. Guess people just can't have A.I. tanks sitting around with embryos in them. :?
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
What people FAIL to realize is that hundreds if not thousands of embryos are destroyed each day ALREADY.

When cryo/fertility clinics are ' done' with a patient and they either have their child or decide not to continue all eggs, fertilized or not, are DESTROYED!

So what's the big moral hissy about.....why not use those cells? Why is there not a push to stop this practice in clinics and thrown the clients in jail who authorize their cells/embryos destroyed???? Why not stone them??? This is the mentality of this furor.

Just one days worth would last for decades in research.


jigs...answer the question.

Why aren't people outraged that perspective parents aren't incubating all the embroys they create? It seems ok to dump them but not to save lives........ :???:
 

Silver

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
kolanuraven said:
What people FAIL to realize is that hundreds if not thousands of embryos are destroyed each day ALREADY.

When cryo/fertility clinics are ' done' with a patient and they either have their child or decide not to continue all eggs, fertilized or not, are DESTROYED!

So what's the big moral hissy about.....why not use those cells? Why is there not a push to stop this practice in clinics and thrown the clients in jail who authorize their cells/embryos destroyed???? Why not stone them??? This is the mentality of this furor.

Just one days worth would last for decades in research.


jigs...answer the question.

Why aren't people outraged that perspective parents aren't incubating all the embroys they create? It seems ok to dump them but not to save lives........ :???:

Because its far more fun and fashionable (in here anyway) to be outraged at the evil, morally bankrupt, dumber than five miles of dirt road liberals :roll:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A majority of U.S. couples with stored embryos from fertility treatments say they would be willing to donate unused embryos for stem cell research, says a doctor who surveyed patients.

"Large numbers of infertility patients ... support using embryos for research, and these are people who have invested emotionally and financially in these embryos," Dr. Anne Drapkin Lyerly of Duke University said in a telephone interview Wednesday.

Use of stem cells derived from embryos is a moral issue that has troubled politicians, religious and medical leaders and couples with stored embryos. And it is an issue with strong advocates on both sides.

The problem is, obtaining stem cells kills the embryo.

Many see this as wrong and argue that they are protecting life. That's what led President Bush to veto a bill Wednesday that would have eased limits on using embryos in research.

<<Link below>>






http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/20/donating.embryos.ap/index.html
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Silver said:
CattleArmy said:
kolanuraven said:
What people FAIL to realize is that hundreds if not thousands of embryos are destroyed each day ALREADY.

When cryo/fertility clinics are ' done' with a patient and they either have their child or decide not to continue all eggs, fertilized or not, are DESTROYED!

So what's the big moral hissy about.....why not use those cells? Why is there not a push to stop this practice in clinics and thrown the clients in jail who authorize their cells/embryos destroyed???? Why not stone them??? This is the mentality of this furor.

Just one days worth would last for decades in research.


jigs...answer the question.

Why aren't people outraged that perspective parents aren't incubating all the embroys they create? It seems ok to dump them but not to save lives........ :???:

Because its far more fun and fashionable (in here anyway) to be outraged at the evil, morally bankrupt, dumber than five miles of dirt road liberals :roll:
Oh come on thats a generalisation on your part,I'm a conservative that is TOTALLY against abortion..for any reason,but they are happening no matter my thought. I do believe in stem cell for the reason two wrongs don't make a right,and I do believe that at least 'some' good can come out of these unwanted embroys. But about the dumber then five miles of dirt road libs,well..... :p
 

NMRANCHER

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
Silver said:
CattleArmy said:
Why aren't people outraged that perspective parents aren't incubating all the embroys they create? It seems ok to dump them but not to save lives........ :???:

Because its far more fun and fashionable (in here anyway) to be outraged at the evil, morally bankrupt, dumber than five miles of dirt road liberals :roll:
Oh come on thats a generalisation on your part,I'm a conservative that is TOTALLY against abortion..for any reason,but they are happening no matter my thought. I do believe in stem cell for the reason two wrongs don't make a right,and I do believe that at least 'some' good can come out of these unwanted embroys. But about the dumber then five miles of dirt road libs,well..... :p

I have to echo Mrs. Greg's opion.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
jigs said:
if sacrificing human life for"science" is ok, then may I suggest Hillary Clinton as the first one we kill to get the cells?

What is wrong with your statement (among other things) is that the cells that would be used would come from embryos that would/will be destroyed anyway. Where is the bill and the push to stop them from being discarded? Why haven't you signed up to adopt the babies and have them planted to full term so you can have another little jigger? Or don't you care about that? Is it just a political agenda with you and the rightwing?
 

jigs

Well-known member
schnurrbart said:
jigs said:
if sacrificing human life for"science" is ok, then may I suggest Hillary Clinton as the first one we kill to get the cells?

What is wrong with your statement (among other things) is that the cells that would be used would come from embryos that would/will be destroyed anyway. Where is the bill and the push to stop them from being discarded? Why haven't you signed up to adopt the babies and have them planted to full term so you can have another little jigger? Or don't you care about that? Is it just a political agenda with you and the rightwing?

no my ignorant friend, I just saw an opportunity for Hillery to die, and I jumped all over it. do not read anything into my post, I want that bitch gone, at any price, so she can not kill this country.
 

Steve

Well-known member
What is wrong with your statement (among other things) is that the cells that would be used would come from embryos that would/will be destroyed anyway.

the wrong in all your statements is that there is no "law" stopping scientific research from being done.

not one.

if any liberal (or any one else) could show the federal law that "out laws" embryonic research please post it...
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
jigs said:
schnurrbart said:
jigs said:
if sacrificing human life for"science" is ok, then may I suggest Hillary Clinton as the first one we kill to get the cells?

What is wrong with your statement (among other things) is that the cells that would be used would come from embryos that would/will be destroyed anyway. Where is the bill and the push to stop them from being discarded? Why haven't you signed up to adopt the babies and have them planted to full term so you can have another little jigger? Or don't you care about that? Is it just a political agenda with you and the rightwing?

no my ignorant friend, I just saw an opportunity for Hillery to die, and I jumped all over it. do not read anything into my post, I want that bitch gone, at any price, so she can not kill this country.

You are still nothing but a name-calling macho boy. Can't wait to hear how you make out with the guys in the dark suits and sunglasses after they catch wind of your death threats to a presidential candidate. Be sure to write. OK?
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
Steve said:
What is wrong with your statement (among other things) is that the cells that would be used would come from embryos that would/will be destroyed anyway.

the wrong in all your statements is that there is no "law" stopping scientific research from being done.

not one.

if any liberal (or any one else) could show the federal law that "out laws" embryonic research please post it...

When did I or anyone else say that there is a law against it. I just said that those embryos are going to be destroyed anyway so why not use them. The law is that there can be no federal funding for research. Private funding is very legal but I would think that private investors are reluctant to invest in something that could be outlawed at any moment by the overzealous rightwing. It is amazing that the rightwing feels no remorse at destroying embryos just so nothing good could possibly come from them because of some "moral" ideas. It sorta goes along with "if you don't accept our way of life, we'll kill you" thinking that dubya is cramming down the Iraqi throat.
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
jigs said:
kolanuraven said:
jigs...answer the question.

ok, if it saves you Kola, I will be in favor of it. I can not hide my deep passionate love for you any more.


Alright...now that's settled...let's move on!!

Wondering if this is a Danielle Steele novel in the works. :D Hate, passion, and now all we need is some romance.....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
jigs said:
if sacrificing human life for"science" is ok, then may I suggest Hillary Clinton as the first one we kill to get the cells?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just make dang sure those cells get used for research and not cloning.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
jigs said:
schnurrbart said:
jigs said:
if sacrificing human life for"science" is ok, then may I suggest Hillary Clinton as the first one we kill to get the cells?

What is wrong with your statement (among other things) is that the cells that would be used would come from embryos that would/will be destroyed anyway. Where is the bill and the push to stop them from being discarded? Why haven't you signed up to adopt the babies and have them planted to full term so you can have another little jigger? Or don't you care about that? Is it just a political agenda with you and the rightwing?

no my ignorant friend, I just saw an opportunity for Hillery to die, and I jumped all over it. do not read anything into my post, I want that bitch gone, at any price, so she can not kill this country.

Like I said, I can't wait for the secret service to get you for threatening the life of a presidential candidate.
 
Top