Bush always doing what's right

[EL the Famous]

Ah, but let's be clear. These are not even embryoes, but cell clusters that may or may not one day becoem embryoes that may or may not become fetus that may or may not become born human beings. This is the problem with Bush's rhetoric. Besides, the cells pertaining to this legislation are left over and slated for destruction as medical waste. These are cells that are not being adopted and the parents do not want them.

 

I was more responding to the poster who made the whole 'snowflake' comment, but it's the may or may not that makes it no less of a clear cut political/science debate, D. If the parents have stated they don't want them, there is no way that they can be used in an adoption scenario and the last option is that they'll be destroyed...of course they should be used to maybe save or maybe not save a life.

 

Just so we're clear, am I wrong for wanting the adoption scenario over their donation to medical research?

[plasticeyeball]

also, i'm sure nobody will actually ever tell them they were a 'snowflake child' and that they'll be 'plagued' w/ that title any more than my kids will be called 'test tube babies' by anybody. they're children. period.

 

 

we taught our twins to kick the shit out of the kids who call them "test tube babies".

 

they prefer to be refered to as "professionally installed" children. they think that sounds more impressive.

[plasticeyeball]

Just so we're clear, am I wrong for wanting the adoption scenario over their donation to medical research?

 

i don't think your wrong for wanting the adoption scenario but i'm pretty sure this was a choice between using cells for good or just throwing them away and bush picked the garbage can.

[kidsmoke]

You can't force the willing. This research has wide support across the country. This is acting against the will of the people.

 

Strongly agreed, Derek. I'm so tired of this goofball speaking so badly for my entire country.

 

 

I have a moral objection to the government using most of my tax dollars to kill people who

have actually been born, while failing to provide for citizens who lack the most basic survival

needs.

 

The only thing that gives me any satisfaction in relation to this moron sitting at the helm is that

karma's got him in its sights.

 

It helps my broken heart to think this way, Tracy, so thank you. So many people and their families suffering, while Bush claims the moral high ground.

[ikol]

You can't force the willing. This research has wide support across the country. This is acting against the will of the people.

 

People can still donate their money to stem cell research. The veto just prevents more tax money from being spent on it. And I still don't see how it's legislating morality.

 

Only four votes shy of overturning the veto. Let's here: the majority of the house, the majority of the senate and 60% of Americans (according to a poll on the news last night) in favor of passing this bill, yet it's rejected because King George says so? His whole presidency has been one big power grab in terms of executive powers. I just hope that someone with a little sense will step in next time and try to reel in some of these changes, but I fear that we'll be still smarting from the Bush adminstration's doings several terms down the road.

 

This is Bush's only veto. Did you complain about Clinton using his executive powers to veto the partial-birth abortion ban twice?

[awatt]

I've reflected long and hard on the political wisdom of this veto and it confirms everything I've come to believe. It's really elementary: Bush is a dickwad.

 

[John Smith]

Ah, but let's be clear. These are not even embryos, but cell clusters that may or may not one day become embryos that may or may not become fetus that may or may not become born human beings. This is the problem with Bush's rhetoric. Besides, the cells pertaining to this legislation are left over and slated for destruction as medical waste. These are cells that are not being adopted and the parents do not want them.

 

His statment of not wanting these little boys and girls to become spare parts is absolutely nauseating. If these cell masses go unused they will become garbage if their owners choose to destroy them. So why not pass laws forbidding that? Sorry IKOL, But I thought you were a pre-med student at one point. The governemnt shoudl be taking the lead on this., Imagine how far $300 billion dollars would have gone in this pursuit. But if you don't want YOUR dollars spent for that, fine there are many things I don't want my dollars spent on, yet I don't seem to be getting my way, go figure. Even if the government funded this they would not be spending your dollars, because like everything else in the Bush administration they would be spending your kids and grand kids money.

Edited July 20, 2006 by John Smith

[plasticeyeball]

People can still donate their money to stem cell research. The veto just prevents more tax money from being spent on it. And I still don't see how it's legislating morality.

 

 

cause he says it is himself

 

The bill passed the senate 63-37 but he seems to think they were wrong so he gets to change legislation.

 

 

"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush said Wednesday afternoon. "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect. So I vetoed it."

[ikol]

His statment of not wanting these little boys and girls to become spare parts is absolutely nauseating. If these cell masses go unused they will become garbage if their owners choose to destroy them. So why not pass laws forbidding that? Sorry IKOL, But I thought you were a pre-med student at one point. The governemnt shoudl be taking the lead on this., Imagine how far $300 billion dollars would have gone in this pursuit. But if you don't want YOUR dollars spent for that, fine there are many things I don't want my dollars spent on, yet I don't seem to be getting my way, go figure. Even if the government funded this they would not be spending your dollars, because like everything else in the Bush administration they would be spending your kids and grand kids money.

 

In less than a month, I'm a med student, but I don't think it will (or should) change my opinion. My objection to embryonic stem cell research is not based on scientific fact alone. No sort of moral/ethical belief can be. Science can tell you what is, not what should be. Admittedly, Bush is inconsistent on this issue since he hasn't to my knowledge spoken out against in vitro fertilization. Why can't we just focus on funding research that uses stem cells other than embryonic? It shows just as much promise, if not more, without the ethical questions. And it's quite impressive that you can criticize Bush for spending too much and not enough in the same paragraph!

[ikol]

cause he says it is himself

 

The bill passed the senate 63-37 but he seems to think they were wrong so he gets to change legislation.

"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush said Wednesday afternoon. "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect. So I vetoed it."

 

Just because he vetoed the bill on moral grounds doesn't mean he's legislating morality. The bill has to do with funding, not criminal law. If the government refuses to buy me a lapdance, are they legislating morality?

[Edie]

ikol, without reading your posts, I already knew what your opinion was on this subject, but I have absolutely no clue what you had for dinner.

[ikol]

Leftover (and thus better) spaghetti.

[John Smith]

Nope, I'm criticizing his spending choices. Big difference. I'm also critical of his, and the republican party's general disdain for science in all area's except applications for warfare.

[Derek Phillips]

Just so we're clear, am I wrong for wanting the adoption scenario over their donation to medical research?

 

No, but that has almost nothing to do with this legislation. Is it wrong for me to like cheese on my burger?

[cryptique]

My objection to embryonic stem cell research is not based on scientific fact alone. No sort of moral/ethical belief can be. Science can tell you what is, not what should be.

Of course you would think that, believing what you do.

 

I don't think there is a "should be." Any "should be" is an arbitrary idea invented by humans.

 

That's why I rely on science to tell me what is.

[JUDE]

... and the republican party's general disdain for science...

 

 

That's why I rely on science...

SCIENCE!!!

[ikol]

Of course you would think that, believing what you do.

 

I don't think there is a "should be." Any "should be" is an arbitrary idea invented by humans.

 

That's why I rely on science to tell me what is.

 

You have a choice in what you do. Unless you just arbitrarily pick what you do, you have some concept of "should be." Or do you just flip a coin every day to decide whether you're going to murder someone?

 

Science can tell you what stem cells are, how to harvest them, and what they can be used for. It can't tell you whether you should harvest them from human embryos. If anything that science says is possible is fair game, you must be all about nuclear weapons.

[EL the Famous]

No, but that has almost nothing to do with this legislation. Is it wrong for me to like cheese on my burger?

 

No need to be a dick, D. Reading this article again, i'm missing the part where you said these weren't embryos and it does say he vetoed a bill for embryonic stem cell research. Exactly why aren't these adoptable? If there are some additional articles that better articulate that the cells in question are unusable for anything other than medical research, please post up...like I said, if they're going to go to waste and absolutely cannot be used in the IVF process...i'm with w/ you all the way on this.

 

Rhetoric is a two-way street, brother and your

[cryptique]

You have a choice in what you do. Unless you just arbitrarily pick what you do, you have some concept of "should be." Or do you just flip a coin every day to decide whether you're going to murder someone?

The idea of murder is a human construct. It wasn't considered right or wrong until some human decided it was wrong.

 

I'm saying that I don't believe in some inviolable notion of what "should be." Morality is something that humans invented, and which includes certain ideas that have been agreed upon across most cultures over centuries, if not millennia. I happen to sleep better at night because the vast majority of people regard murder as wrong, but I harbor no illusions that its wrongness derives from some superhuman source, be it a god or prophet or cosmic truth.

 

Science can tell you what stem cells are, how to harvest them, and what they can be used for. It can't tell you whether you should harvest them from human embryos. If anything that science says is possible is fair game, you must be all about nuclear weapons.

You misunderstand me. I don't rely on science to tell me what's "fair game." I rely on science to tell me, to the best of its ability, what exists and what does not, how things work, what doesn't work, and why things are the way they are (among other things). I decide for myself whether I think something is "fair game," as you put it. Does that mean "should be"? For myself, sure. For others -- I wouldn't presume to tell someone else how something "should be" for them. We all have our ideas about how the world "should" work ... the difference is that some of us try to live within our own ideas, for ourselves, while others seek to impose their ideas on the rest of the world.

 

As for nuclear weapons ... I'm not "all about" them because they're far too destructive a way to wipe humans off the earth. I am "all about" the extinction of the human race, though -- but only if we can kill ourselves off without otherwise harming the planet and the other living things that inhabit it.

 

Plus, ikol's last post is dead on, to say that you live your life and make decisions in it based only on science versus any sort of moral compass is pretty implausible. Maybe it's the scary word 'moral' and if that's the case...use 'philosophical' then.

That's ikol (and you) putting words in my mouth. See my post above.

[quarter23cd]

If the government refuses to buy me a lapdance, are they legislating morality?

No, but the first politician to suggest a program like this will win in an landslide!

 

Nodoby likes seeing their tax dollars being spent on things they disapprove of. The left doesn't like seeing all the money going to defense contractors and faith-based initiatives...and the right gets wigged out by stem cells and the NEA. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

The (oversimplified) answer many people have to this is that the government should have a reduced role in distributing money and if you want money put towards something, donate it yourself. This has a nice DIY ring to it on the surface, but it is immensely impractical in real life, IMO. All they're really saying is "I don't like this program and I'm betting you won't jump through all the extra hoops in order to actually pay it yourself and then my problem will go away and when you bitch about it I can act real smug and say--hey, buddy, its your own fault!"

 

I don't mind the goverment using tax dollars to pay for things that can be agreed to be for the common good. And, in this case, with a pretty obvious majority of the population supporting federal funding for this, there is a pretty obvious consensus that this is the case...and it is, frankly, irresponsible for an elected representative to play 'daddy knows best' with this.

[viatroy]

I've been carrying around a lifetime supply of potential humans, and DAMN ME! I've only allowed two of them to potentiate into human beings!!

[plasticeyeball]

No need to be a dick, D. Reading this article again, i'm missing the part where you said these weren't embryos and it does say he vetoed a bill for embryonic stem cell research. Exactly why aren't these adoptable?

 

 

 

here's a summary from the AP.

 

 

To qualify for federal funding under the bill, newer embryos could be used in studies only if they:

_Were created for the purposes of fertility treatment.

_Were donated by in vitro fertilization clinics with written, informed consent of those being being treated.

_Were "in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment" and would never be implanted in a woman.

_Would otherwise be discarded, as determined by those seeking treatment.

_Were not donated by patients induced to do so by financial or other incentives.

__

Source: "The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005," H.R. 810.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

which is why parading those kids around as possible outcomes of the cells in question is disgusting and utter bullshit.

 

as i said yesterday, the 2 choices are use them for research or throw them in the garbage and he chose the garbage.

[cryptique]

here's a summary from the AP.

To qualify for federal funding under the bill, newer embryos could be used in studies only if they:

_Were created for the purposes of fertility treatment.

_Were donated by in vitro fertilization clinics with written, informed consent of those being being treated.

_Were "in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment" and would never be implanted in a woman.

_Would otherwise be discarded, as determined by those seeking treatment.

_Were not donated by patients induced to do so by financial or other incentives.

__

Source: "The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005," H.R. 810.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

which is why parading those kids around as possible outcomes of the cells in question is disgusting and utter bullshit.

 

as i said yesterday, the 2 choices are use them for research or throw them in the garbage and he chose the garbage.

Thanks, PEB -- I'd been searching for that text.

[EL the Famous]

I've been carrying around a lifetime supply of potential humans, and DAMN ME! I've only allowed two of them to potentiate into human beings!!

 

I respectfully would like to ask what point does that make?

 

For others -- I wouldn't presume to tell someone else how something "should be" for them. We all have our ideas about how the world "should" work ... the difference is that some of us try to live within our own ideas, for ourselves, while others seek to impose their ideas on the rest of the world.

 

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. However, if you want, I could re-post a handful of things that completely contradict that statement. We all do that...me, you, ikol, everybody...in one way or another and most of the time, based on opinion and not indisputable fact.

 

To qualify for federal funding under the bill, newer embryos could be used in studies only if they:

_Were created for the purposes of fertility treatment.

_Were donated by in vitro fertilization clinics with written, informed consent of those being being treated.

_Were "in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment" and would never be implanted in a woman.

_Would otherwise be discarded, as determined by those seeking treatment.

_Were not donated by patients induced to do so by financial or other incentives.

 

which is why parading those kids around as possible outcomes of the cells in question is disgusting and utter bullshit. as i said yesterday, the 2 choices are use them for research or throw them in the garbage and he chose the garbage.

 

then I completely agree and take personal insult in the posturing done by W during the press conference as well. it just seems a little crazy to me that so many couples are looking to become parents, having such a hard time and we have an "excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment", but I obviously don't have the full details. fuck 'em.

[viatroy]

I respectfully would like to ask what point does that make?

 

 

Im a godless immoral heathen.