First Veto...

Remove all ads!

Lets just see the Repubs try to pass a bill against lab-produced embryos for fertilization then... No? Hypocrites...

 

I for one was very disappointed in this veto.

 

something else that europe will take the lead on

 

This is what Jon Stewart on Comedy Central has to say about Bush's first veto.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsAYmKkE3xw&NR

It's sad that the American President can't seem to see past his nose and is against a bill on purely nonsence grounds.
That video should clearly define how sacred all life is for him.

 

Or maybe China, once they shrug off corruption and the remaining aspects of dictatorship. They are already showing promise in space-technology, so maybe China and EU will lead the way more prominently in the future. EU in bio-tech, CH in space-tech, and US in the christian-tech.

 

The Jon Stewart thing was very funny and true... the only thing I wish he'd cover is the fact that the stem cells were going to be thrown away anyways, scientists are just using 'trash.'

 

Along those same lines, this whole debate has made me wonder something. If destroying these pre-embryos is tantamount to murder, as the opponants are claiming, why are there not mass protests outside of invitro clinics all across the country? Why are couples who conceive through invitro firtilization not demonized as "baby-killers" by these people, as it's rare that a fertilization attempt takes on the first try, and it's common for several - sometimes dozens - of attempts before fertilization is achieved? Why are invitro clinics not sued for malpractice for every unsuccessful attempt, as they are effectively destroying a pre-embryo in the attempt to artificially fertilize it? Does the intent to create a child somehow invalidate the fact that the vast majority of these pre-embryos are doomed anyway?

The disconnect here occurs on so many levels it's hard to keep track.

 

I won't argue the flaws of animal models because I agree they are fairly dodgy in many cases, not all, but many.

Sorry for lumping all anti-animal testing people together, was just trying to make a point that some of these people jump on the bandwagon without any clue or valid reason why.

 

Is vetoing something very common, over there? I assume by the face that Bush had never done it before, it can't be too common, but what about past presidents?

Does him doing so have many concequences, other than the ones specifically related to this bill?

Is there any information about how the veto system works in the USA?

 

Historically, yes. Especially when the executive and legislative branches of our government are at odds with one another. Bush going 6 years without a veto is quite remarkable, though not unheard of.

Directly, no. The President issues vetoes purely at his own discretion and is under no obligation to do so. However, considering the damage his party's reckless spending has done to my country's fiscal standing by never issuing one as a means of restraint, I'd say there definitely are consequences.

Here's more detailed information on the Veto:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto

 

It does have consequences if he vetos a popular bill, such as the one he just did. People of his own party who are pro-life are even against it, which can lead to dislike of his successor for the mere fact that he is Republican...

 

If the fertilized eggs were not viable to be implanted, and could be likened unto corpses, then that wouldn't be so objectionable, but don't kill one on my account either.

 

Gnarff,

Either you're not getting it or I'm not explaining myself correctly. The donated embryos will never be implanted into anyone. Their chances of ever becoming a baby are 0%. So you are saying you'd rather see the embryos thrown in a dumpster instead of being used to potentially find cures to debilitating diseases? I do not see where your logic comes from, and I totally don't understand your motivation for feeling this way.

 

Is this the "culture of life" that George talks so much about? Thousands dead in Iraq and the refusal to explore the science fiction-like promise of stem cell research. Instead of rectifying his previous mistake of limiting federal funding for stem cell research, George once again delayed probable cures which could fix millions of people....millions-this is not an exaggeration of the promise. Damaged heart cells could be replaced, spinal cords mended (fully paralyzed rats have been made to walk again---in WEEKS), all manner of organ damage could be treated (in fact, entirely new organs for transplant are not out out of the question), diabetes, alzheimer's etc. etc. etc.

And for what has George vetoed this bill? As Aldeth and others have pointed out; **if these highly medicinal embryos are not used to treat sick people they will be discarded**. The donors who created the embryo must **consent** to the usage of their speciman and **cannot** profit from the use of the embryos. If anyone has a rational reason to not use stem cells under these conditions, please post and explain it to me....I'm at a loss.

Hopefully, this veto lights a fire under states which are already considering following the example set by California.

 

All I know is this will severely restrict the growth of medical research in the USA because there are much less limitations (or pretty much none in the case of a country like China) on stem-cell research in other countries.

 

Hopefully they try and pass a similar bill after teaching Bush exactly what nunsbane said and giving him definite proof (show him...), and maybe he won't be so... ignorant.

[ July 26, 2006, 14:42: Message edited by: Saber ]

 

It has nothing to do with that, though. Bush didn't use the veto because of his own deeply-held convictions, and he certainly has access to adequate "proof," as nunsbane suggests. He did it to appease the deeply-held convictions of his base - the evangelical christianist right - the only people left who still give him a positive approval rating. What nunsbane suggests is perfectly reasonable. But the problem with these people is their standard of "reasonable" means running it by the bible first, with no deviation.

 

Perhaps the whole system of atificial insemination. If there is no ethical system by which fertilized Embryos may be brought to life, then and only then would they be available for research.

The biggest problem that the religious right has is the perception that they are basically aborting a potential life for the gain of others. I cannot ask this to be done on my behalf...

 

Exactly - and who is responsible for this inaccurate perception - stem-cell advocates or the religious right themselves?

 

As said before there is NO 'risk' here. The stem-cells donated will NOT be fertalised, there just aren't enough wombs to go around.

Rather than prevent the stem-cells from being harvested they're preventing the harvested stem-cells from being benefical for mankind. The so called 'murder' has already taken place the moment the cells are donated since it is then that the fate of the cells has been decided. Unless those against stem-cell research can procure countless women to incubate these potential lives then they will go to waste. Somehow I doubt there will be that many women who are willing to bring another child into the world.