Bush Vetoes Embryonic Stem-Cell Bill


gc
#1
Link

What I find hilarious about this is the reason why bush doesn't support embryonic stem-cell research: "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others...". This research has the potential to save lives yet bush doesn't support it because it would require taking innocent lives (nevermind the fact that those embryos would have otherwise been discarded). So what in the world was the iraq war about? Wasn't that taking innocent lives to save lives? What hypocrisy!
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#2
I would suggest that it is somewhat odd that His Excellency the Honourable George Bush , the President of the United States of America , would so hastily veto a piece of legislation (in particular, one which likely would have undergone one of the most thorough debates in his nation's legislature in recent history).

Our own executive in Canada has the right to veto legislation, too, but I am curious as to why this power is used with so much more frequency in the United States than it is here. Nonetheless, I think that the legislation to which this thread refers was quite warranted, a good idea, and I think it's a shame that the President disallowed it.
 
Simpleton
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

I would suggest that it is somewhat odd that His Excellency the Honourable George Bush , the President of the United States of America , would so hastily veto a piece of legislation (in particular, one which likely would have undergone one of the most thorough debates in his nation's legislature in recent history).

Our own executive in Canada has the right to veto legislation, too, but I am curious as to why this power is used with so much more frequency in the United States than it is here. Nonetheless, I think that the legislation to which this thread refers was quite warranted, a good idea, and I think it's a shame that the President disallowed it.

Probably because our executive is appointed. And what the Prime Minister giveth, the Prime Minister can taketh away. For our executive, it's a matter of how much he/she values his/her job.

Besides, there would be public outrage if the Governor General had ever vetoed a bill that had been passed by the parliament.
 
gc
#4
Agreed. I too am disappointed that it was vetoed. Any respect for bush I may have had is now completely gone. I just can't understand his motive, except to appease the religious right, although I still can't understand why even the religious right would be opposed to something that could save lives and is not really taking any lives, not even the life of an embryo. In response to your question about why the president uses his veto power more often, I would say it is because (unlike our executive) he (or she, someday?) is elected with this power and therefore has more 'authority' to use it. Apparently this was his first veto since taking office, so I guess it doesn't happen that often, but then again it might be a different story if the republicans didn't control the house and senate.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by [i

Simpleton[/i]]Probably because our executive is appointed. And what the Prime Minister giveth, the Prime Minister can taketh away. For our executive, it's a matter of how much he/she values his/her job.

Besides, there would be public outrage if the Governor General had ever vetoed a bill that had been passed by the parliament.

Good evening, Simpleton . How are you?

Just to clarify my sentiments, I was referring to Her Excellency the Governor General or Her Majesty the Queen disallowing a piece of legislation on the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada , and situations such as those. While I recognize that the Queen's representatives have the prerogative to do so, I also recognize that in the modern age it would only be done in extreme circumstances.
 
Simpleton
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

Quote: Originally Posted by [i

Simpleton[/i]]Probably because our executive is appointed. And what the Prime Minister giveth, the Prime Minister can taketh away. For our executive, it's a matter of how much he/she values his/her job.

Besides, there would be public outrage if the Governor General had ever vetoed a bill that had been passed by the parliament.

Good evening, Simpleton . How are you?

Just to clarify my sentiments, I was referring to Her Excellency the Governor General or Her Majesty the Queen disallowing a piece of legislation on the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada , and situations such as those. While I recognize that the Queen's representatives have the prerogative to do so, I also recognize that in the modern age it would only be done in extreme circumstances.

Could you imagine how the Canadian people would react if the Queen were to veto a piece of Canadian legislation? I would expect that a great majority of Canadians would be calling for her head.

Has the Queen ever vetoed a piece of Canadian legislation in the past? Just curious.
 
gc
#7
On the advice of the prime minister? Why would the government pass a bill and then veto it? Or am I not understanding that correctly?
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#8
No, the Queen has never veto-ed a piece of legislation. Nonetheless, I would re-iterate, when I mentioned the executive power of veto, I was running under the assumption that it would be done on the advice of a prime minister.

In any case, if the Queen veto-ed a piece of legislation (within two years of its passage, as is her right) on the advice of a prime minister, I would suggest that it would be our prime minister who would take the heat for such a decision.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#9
gc , while it doesn't happen often, it sometimes occurs that a private member's piece of legislation can be enacted, even where the Government opposed the legislation. In such a case, I suppose it wouldn't be inconceivable for a prime minister to exercise veto power (through an executive). Theoretically, the prime minister can also exercise (through an executive) veto power over legislation passed by provinces, but this power isn't used often.
 
Freethinker
#10
The religious right does some pretty wacky things. Did you notice Bush had snowflake kids on stage with him. Snowflake kids are the extra embryos created at fertility clinics when doing IVF. They are kept frozen.

Religious right has taken to adopting the embryos, having them implanted and having the children.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8242/CWA/life/index.htm

It all seems completely stark raving mad to me.
 
gc
#11
If the religious right wants to use the embryos to produce children I see no problem with that. What I find stark raving mad is that many of these embryos are simply discarded yet they can not be used for research. There are also hundreds of thousands of them currently frozen, do you think all of them are going to be used to produce children? That's why I think it is a complete lie to say that stem cell research would require the destruction of innocent life. Simply not true!
 
Kreskin
#12
This is the first bill Bush has vetoed since becoming President. A decision based not on ethics or morals but based on a desparate attempt to appease his dwindling base.
 
Semperfi_dani
#13
I concur with Kreskin.

Pathetic really...(edited..not Kreskin's view or my agreement with Kreskin..hahaha. I meant GB uses his first veto on this. But i guess since every other policy he has going sucks, this one sure makes him look like a tough guy *insert sarcasm*).
 
Kreskin
#14
The politics of reproductive technology in the US is one of the more peculiar wonders of the world. The use of embryos for research doesn't hit the radar screen for questionable ethics compared to the various profit making schemes allowed with human gametes.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#15
What is really stupid,

is that stem cells can be taken from the Umbilical cord and the placenta which are discarded, like Bush should have been at birth.
 
Kreskin
#16
Let me explain an epidemic scam in the US. Trailer trash advertise to be surrogate mothers. They charge anywhere from $16000-$30000 fee (profit on top of expenses) paid in monthly installments or in thirds, depending on the treatment cycle to get pregnant. Said trailer trash go through the motions, have embryos implanted then use all of their abilities to incur a failed pregnancy.

This no joke. There are entire forums on the internet dedicated to these beware scams. People trading gametes for profit schemes that ultimately destroy embryos for nothing.

It is nothing short of laughable to see embryonic stemcell research considering unethical when the government allows that kind of environment - the purposeful trade, profit by, and destruction of embryos.
 
thecdn
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by gc

Any respect for bush I may have had is now completely gone.

You still had some respect for Bush at this point?

Quote: Originally Posted by gc

I just can't understand his motive, except to appease the religious right, although I still can't understand why even the religious right would be opposed to something that could save lives and is not really taking any lives, not even the life of an embryo.

The religious right has to take this stance in order to back up their stance on abortion. You know, the bit where life begins at conception and therefore all abortion is bad.

So yes, now they are willing to sacrifice the lives of people with diseases that could be cured by stem cell research for their political stance against abortion.

Is it any wonder why I hate religion?
 
I think not
#18
What matters is stem cell research continues to go forward in other parts of the world. Medical breakthroughs are not confined to one country. I just find it odd some of the posters are "dissapointed", the pharmaceutical giants don't get to do their research. Interesting.
 
gc
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by thecdn

The religious right has to take this stance in order to back up their stance on abortion. You know, the bit where life begins at conception and therefore all abortion is bad.

So yes, now they are willing to sacrifice the lives of people with diseases that could be cured by stem cell research for their political stance against abortion.

Is it any wonder why I hate religion?

Aah, now I understand it. Even though I disagree strongly with their stance, I can at least understand it, which is that they are willing to let people suffer from diseases just to show that they are right on the issue of abortion.

Quote:

What matters is stem cell research continues to go forward in other parts of the world. Medical breakthroughs are not confined to one country.

The U.S. is basically a 'world leader' when it comes to medical research. If medical research in the U.S. is hindered in any way, than the overall research of the entire world will be hindered accordingly.

Quote:

I just find it odd some of the posters are "dissapointed", the pharmaceutical giants don't get to do their research. Interesting.

This bill was about federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, in other words funding for those who work at Universities and the NIH etc...That has nothing to do with pharmaceutical giants.
 
Nuggler
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

What is really stupid,

is that stem cells can be taken from the Umbilical cord and the placenta which are discarded, like Bush should have been at birth.

Once again, Sir Juan, thou hath hitteth the nail on the head. Direct and to the point and true true true. Without a bunch of verbiage. Just WHACK!!! That is truly goddam great.

May I use it??



Ugg.

 
Kreskin
#21
Cord blood is probably the solution. Umbilical cord and embryonic stemcells aren't quite the same though. Embryonic stemcells have a higher level of cell differentiation. The flipside is many who have been in the research area admit that embryonic stemcells probably won't have the practical application that many want to believe it could. The cancer issues are still unclear and it may take a hundred or more embryos for one treatment plan. Without further research no one will truly know.

The problem I have is Bush has not looked at any issues other than the ethical issues. Even there he doesn't understand what happens in the industry but he knows it looks good to his base.
 
Riyko
#22
I kind of agree with bush on the veto of this bill mainly because the U.S. taxpayers would have to fund the federal government to be able to do the stem cell research.

I don't like bush, but I also don't want to have to pay for a research the government wants to do. They could use the money for better education.
 
gc
#23
Riyko,

I don't know if you are aware, but the U.S. government already funds medical research in the United States (as well as in Canada). In fact the budget of the NIH alone (which is a government agency) has a budget of about $28 billion according to wikipedia. This 28 billion is then distributed in smaller grants to researchers across the country. As far as I know, the bill would not increase the budget of the NIH, and hence you would not actually be paying more money. It would just mean that some of that 28 billion could be used to fund stem cell research. It is important for the government to fund research, because of course anyone can get sick at anytime, so what you are paying into now may pay off big time later.

NIH from Wikipedia
 
tamarin
Conservative
#24
As has been said, Bush's veto covers federal funding. Stem cell research is hot. It's a huge frontier. There will be no trouble getting private funding to promising research players. IPO's will rake in more cash than Pirates of the Caribbean. No shortage of money in this field. As the international competition heats up, the US should find growth in stem cell science carried along on the wave. An investment tsunami.
 
gc
#25
Some funny cartoons on the subject...



 

Similar Threads

33
Bush vetoes child health bill
by gerryh | Oct 10th, 2007
3
0
14
Blair to defy Bush over stem cell research.
by Blackleaf | Aug 22nd, 2006