First Veto...

Remove all ads!

Well, recently Bush vetoed his first bill... a bill that would take away the ban on federal funding for stem cell research.

More info here and here.

Now, if you have been keeping up on this, you should recall that various sources say that most scientists believe that further work with stem cells can provide answers to diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

In addition, around 60% of Americans wanted this Bill to pass (I can't find a source for that, I just heard it on various news stations...).


Now, my opinion: Shouldn't we worry about those who are alive and miserable (or if not miserable, then certainly not at normal/average health condition) than focus on those who may be (possibly) life in the future? My great uncle just died of Alzheimer's, and I would rather have him (and others like him) helped than people who don't exist yet. Bush's arguments about them "not being spare parts" is bogus. The boys and girls aren't being used to help heal other people, things that aren't life yet are.

Plus, this is just more proof why we aren't even close to a democracy... the Senate votes for a Bill that the majority of people support, and one guy can come along and say 'No.'

Any thoughts?

 

I am not quite familiar with the Catholic views on this point, but i think the the tenets of the Roman Catholic church is that even though the body may not be formed, that embryo is a life form and by killing it one commits a crime.
So from that point of view he did what his faith and morals instructed him to do.
I agree that stem cells can help and save a lot of people from diseases (not only Alzheimer or Parkinson iirc from what i have read in NG for this issue) but there must be found another way, that does not insult the ethics of certain groups.
It is a tricky issue and to be honest no answer is totally right IMHO.

 

In a democratic sense passing the bill is the right thing to do. These stem cells have _potential_ for life much like how a seed potential for life or a woman has the potential to give birth to children, yet we don't _force_ her to fulfill her potential by keeping her popping out kids since for her to not spend every waking moment pregnant or giving birth is denying something else the joy of life.

I agree with Saber, it's 'bogus' to claim that stem cells are life. They're nothing but a cell that happens to be part of the reproductive process.

 

I disagree with this. The veto is a very important tool the president has at his disposal. It can be used to diffuse legislation that is purely political in nature and is probably the best defense against pork barrel politics. Unfortunately, it depends entirely on the discretion of the President to use this, and if the President happens to be in favor of said dodgy legislation and/or is suffering from a defficiency of principal at the time, the veto will not be used and the trust of the people is further eroded.

This is what we've seen on a regular basis for the last 5 years of this administration. This is a prime example of why it's so dangerous when one party controls all 3 branches of government. It's far too easy for the ruling party to develop a "kid in a candy store" mentality and pass whatever legislation they want with impunity.

As for Bush's first veto, I think it's shameful. It was IMO done purely to appease the bible-thumper base, and no other reason. There have been dozens of spending bills that needed the ax over the last few years, as a means of trimming the fat off of them. How it's supposed to work is - a bill gets submitted with everything on it, bill gets vetoed, bill gets sent back for revision, bill gets passed with more reasonable provisions. Either Bush has never understood this concept, or he's never seen a reason not to grant congress every dime it's ever asked for. Hence, the perpetually imbalanced budget.

[ July 24, 2006, 02:29: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

The most disgusting thing about it is that the president has the audacity to call stem cell research of this type murder. He is clearly ignoring the fact that the potential life in question is actually going to be destroyed whether it is used for research or not (these surplus embryos are destroyed far more often than they are used for research). He isn't protecting life, or even prolonging it. Fortunately, in this case his Veto is easilly overriden, judging by the vote count that passed the legislation in the first place. Unless congress decides against putting it to the vote again, this Veto will not stand.

 

The people against stem cell research, like the ones against animal testing, are probably the ones who will be the first lining up for the cure when a new medical breakthrough is discovered.

 

People against animal testing almost universally support alternatives like stem cell research as well as human tissue research. These types of testing impose no unnecessary suffering and do not cause false positives and other similarly misleading results. Don't lump those of us who are against running LD 50 tests (look up LD50 in google....you may vomit) on animals so we can have better shampoo with people who oppose stem cell research under the guise of protecting life that is already going to be destroyed.

Many against animal research cite scientific, not ethical, reasons to stand against it. If we relied on animal testing, pennicilin never would have been tested on humans. In the US, we actually spent 10 years chasing bad leads discovered via animal testing. France, who did not rely on animal research at the time, got there first.

 

As someone who could be helped by this research, I think I have the right to speak. However I don't think I speak for all those in my position.

I wouldn't want to see potential human life destroyed that mine could be made easier. If a treatment could come forth that did not rely on artificially creating a fetus to destroy it, I'd be interested, but don't squander such potential on my behalf. Yes, I'd like some of my health burdens lifted, but not at the cost of my soul.

To Bush, and in his opinion, his supporters, to destroy that potential is a huge violation of what America stands for. That is Bush's job, isn't it?

 

If anyone in favor of stem-cell research had ever been advocating the creation of a fetus just to destroy it for this research, then yes, you would be correct. But in reality, no rational person is suggesting we do that.

It's funny to me how people against stem-cell research keep bringing this up as a justification for being against it, when they're the only ones who's mind it ever crosses. In fact, this counter-arguement is parroted so much by stem-cell research opponants that it makes me wonder if they're deliberately misrepresenting the issue or if they aren't even listening to what the other side is proposing and instead are just shooting down their own false interpretation.

There are hundreds of thousands of unused pre-embryos that either go unclaimed and/or are discarded by invitro clinics every year. These pre-embryos were created with the intention of being fertilized in a womb and making a baby. But for whatever reason, these pre-embryos aren't being used, and hence, will not create human life. THESE are the specimens with which stem-cell researchers will conduct their research, and has been all along. No one is advocating aborting fetuses just so scientists can crack their heads open.

Should we sacrifice this immense potential benefit to mankind for some abstract idea of protecting the rights of a clump of cells that is not - and will never become - a sentient human being?

 

@Gnarff: We aren't creating potential life just to destroy it in research. That is not what the government is being asked to fund. We are asking the government to fund research on potential life that is going to be destroyed anyway. We are getting this potential life primarily from fertility clinics. The potential life we are using for research (albeit without government funding) is life that will be destroyed whether we fund such research or not.

This is not an issue of protecting potential life, because the potential life Bush seeks to "protect" will already be destroyed for no purpose whatsoever when the fertility clinics "dispose" of it. If we were to fund such research, however, it will be destroyed in potentially beneficial scientific research instead. One way or another, this potential life will be destroyed. Bush's veto protects nothing.

EDIT: Heh. Looks like DR beat me to it.

 

No, they failed to override his Veto, for some reason. From one of the sources I gave:

 

If god didn't want humans to conduct such research, he would not have give us the idea (or the capability) in the first place.

So its fair game to me.

I'd rather see those who are alive being helped than thinking about a lump of cells.

Hey, noone is making a ruckus about the billions of lifeforms our immune system kills everyday.
How is a lump of stem cells different from a bacteria (aside the fact that the bacteria might try to kill you)?

 

This logic is fundamentally flawed, unless you accept certain things. He also gave us the ability to murder, rape, torture, etc. If you okay the research using only this logic, you must also accept that it is okay to do all of the above...and even worse. Saying "He let us, so it's okay" applies to everything that happens in the world. You need other reasons if you're going to be at all picky. (You do a decent job with the next bit, though.)

 

Heh. So, a lot of folks that initially voted to pass it voted against overriding the veto. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

 

"Saying "He let us, so it's okay" applies to everything that happens in the world"


From gods perspective it is okay, or did he ever say anything against it?
As long as people use the "god didn't want that" arguments over and over they simply have to be reminded of this little, ugly truth.

God is not making our laws nor does he define our morality. We are. And since WE are doing it, saying "god says bla bla blah" is not helpfull in any way. Right now, in my sense of moraility, stem cell research is ok. It's not life as i would realy care about (im honest with that, i can't symphatise with a lump of cells. but i can with ppl who have alzheimer, for example. Their life is what i call cruel.). I don't care about the little bird i kill every three day by eating an egg (or two) and i certainly dont wind up crying when i prepare a steak. I simply can't stand here, say stem cell research is bad because it might be a living being, while im cracking an egg for an omlette and wonder if i will end up with alzheimer some day.

If a bad aftertaste is the price for curing alzheimer and stuff, i'll pay it. Life is a box full of suprises, most of them are of "bad" nature and id like to believe that there will be means available to deal with those bad suprises.

I just hate it when people resort to "god" as a reason to be against something and so i like to remind them of the fact that GOD never said anything even remotely useful so far. Only some stupid humans who either left home with the "****, need a new job. how does messiah sound?" attitude or climbed down a mountain came to gloat some rubbisch into the world.


did i make any sense? im awake for too long now, should not pull allnighters anymore.

zzZZzzzz

 

interesting how bush has vetoed this. in 2001 he allowed government funding of embryonic stem cell research (though he didnt allow government money to be used to remove cells from teh embruo's because it would kill them, private money was still allowed for that part of the research.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,535023,00.html

 

If I remember correctly, Bush only allowed continued funding on the strains they already had.

 

You are correct in your thought regarding the Roman Catholic Church. The only problem with your reasoning is Bush is not Catholic.

Gnarff, allow me to expand slightly on what others have said. Instead of just shooting you down, they should have given a bit better of an explanation of what the bill said. It is true that the proposed legislation would allow fertilized eggs from fertility clinics to be used in research. There are two futher points that no one has brought up. 1.) The "parents" of the ferilized egg they have no intention of ever using would have to donate it of their own volition and 2.) The "parents" would not be compensated in any way for their donation.

Both points are important here. For starters, it is important to note that this is not a potential human life we're talking about, since the owners of the feritilzed egg have no intention of ever implanting it. (The most common reason for this is that they successfully had a child, and do not desire to have any more.) There are already laws on the books that prohibit a couple from giving a fertilized egg to someone else. In other words, if they don't ever use it, then the fertilized egg would go in the dumpster. Many people believe that if a fertilized egg can be put to some use, it's better than throwing it away.

The second point about not being compensated for the donation is equally important. This was added to prevent the explicit act that you described. Specifically, that someone would become pregnant with no intention of ever carrying the fetus to term, but rather to sell off the fetus to science. It was already illegal to do that, so this law was just reinforcing that people would have to make this donation for free.

Correct - and that's the way the law still stands today.

 

Science is not about compromises; it's about evolution and sometimes it hurts. E.g: increased mobility, electricity, medicine, decreased dependance of religions, and increased living-standards (the redistribution of wealth and the disappearance of traditional professions). I don't think there is a way to cover all fronts without sacrificing the purpose, so it's all about free research vs. constrained research.

Unfortunately the religious radicals believe exactly the opposite and listen no reason. The same as with abortion, prostitution, cloning, nuclear power, genetic engineering, and other advances. It doesn't matter what it is if it sounds "evil." And the worst thing is that most of them do not even understand what they oppose. I have seen several people preaching against one of these things on certain boards, but when asked to explain the matter they start inventing excuses.

There are many other things wrong in US, as reported throghout the year, so one very undemocratic action is just one entry in the growing list. But that's "United States of America" for you.

 

And then there's the issue that not all of the stem cells are harvested from embryos. Every multicellular organism has a limited, but extensive storage of stem cells. But only a few have extensive amounts of totipotent stem cells, like salamanders, which can differentiate into any cell. These are the one's you most easily find from the embryos and that's why the interest on embryos is so great.

But if the research funding on all stem cells is limited, then the resesarch on adult stem cells might be limited as well. And to limit the research of adult stem cells is just plain stupid, since by using the body's own stem cells can be a cure, and has already been a partial cure for things like paralysis and the basis for denying the stem cell funding applies only to embryonic stem cells.