Congress, White House on collision course over stem cells

Milhouse VanHouten

chopitdown wrote:

That's what's happened to the religious vote. They vote for one or 2 issues... even though i'm sure a lot don't agree with the rest of the platform, at least abortion / gay marriage is "taken care of" in their eyes.

That's another thing, especially in regards to gay marriage. I don't see how any reasonable person can choose to worry so much about stopping gay marriage as opposed to, say, worrying about Iraq or the deficit or education. If you don't support gay marriage, then don't participate in one. It's like gay marriage opponents seem to think that legalizing same sex marriage will entail mandatory gay marriages for all American citizens or something, like a team of Army Rangers is going to force you to marry your golf buddy at gunpoint and a team of Navy Seals is going to preside over a union betwen your wife and some woman from her yoga class.

Nothingman54

hippiemom wrote:

So you refuse all medical treatment?

That's cool if you do ... the more medical treatment I get, the more I think about refusing any more of it, that's for sure. I've just never met anyone who actually does that.

I never said I would refuse medical treatment. I dont suport stemcell. It may help people but just because it helps people does not make it right or moral. Technology is getting way to crazy in this world. We will be the demise of our own deaths.

hippiemom

Nothingman54 wrote:

I never said I would refuse medical treatment. I dont suport stemcell. It may help people but just because it helps people does not make it right or moral. Technology is getting way to crazy in this world. We will be the demise of our own deaths.

Sorry ... you said "If its my time to go, then its my time to go," which led me to believe you wouldn't take steps to postpone that time. So since you are not saying that, are you saying that because YOU don't think this research is moral, that OTHER PEOPLE should be denied the benefits of it? There are many who don't think animal research is moral ... should they be able to deny you the benefits of that, even though you yourself may have no moral qualms about it?

Milhouse VanHouten

hippiemom wrote:

Sorry ... you said "If its my time to go, then its my time to go," which led me to believe you wouldn't take steps to postpone that time. So since you are not saying that, are you saying that because YOU don't think this research is moral, that OTHER PEOPLE should be denied the benefits of it? There are many who don't think animal research is moral ... should they be able to deny you the benefits of that, even though you yourself may have no moral qualms about it?

Some people seem to feel that it is their right to deny other people access to the potential benefits of stem cell research, abortion, same sex marriage, etc., based on their own moral/ideological/religious objections.

"If I don't want it, no one else should be allowed to have it."

Or something, I don't know, I'm pretty drunk.

Nothingman54

hippiemom wrote:

Sorry ... you said "If its my time to go, then its my time to go," which led me to believe you wouldn't take steps to postpone that time. So since you are not saying that, are you saying that because YOU don't think this research is moral, that OTHER PEOPLE should be denied the benefits of it? There are many who don't think animal research is moral ... should they be able to deny you the benefits of that, even though you yourself may have no moral qualms about it?

Just because you can do something dosent mean you should.

Nothingman54

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

Some people seem to feel that it is their right to deny other people access to the potential benefits of stem cell research, abortion, same sex marriage, etc., based on their own moral/ideological/religious objections.

"If I don't want it, no one else should be allowed to have it."

Or something, I don't know, I'm pretty drunk.

Everything you listed is wrong, same sex marriage, abortion, and steam cell research. How can all of you say its ok to kill a baby?????? But its ok to do steam cell????????????????? I dont get it?????????????????? I am by no means a repb. but or dem for that matter. I just dont get how you can say its ok to kill a baby but use stem cell to save lives???????????????????? Thats kind of fucked up. THINK ABOUT IT!

hippiemom

Nothingman54 wrote:

Just because you can do something dosent mean you should.

What does that mean?

The question is simple ... do you think that the overwhelming majority of Americans who have no moral qualms about stem cell research should be denied the potential benefits because a minority thinks it's immoral?

Nothingman54

hippiemom wrote:

What does that mean?

The question is simple ... do you think that the overwhelming majority of Americans who have no moral qualms about stem cell research should be denied the potential benefits because a minority thinks it's immoral?

Like I said im about 50/50. Saving lives is important but steam cell should have never been started or even thought of. I think its evil. I really dont know what else to say about it. I would never denie anybody the right to live but at what exstint are we go to to save lives? I mean no disrespect to anybody.

Milhouse VanHouten

Nothingman54 wrote:

Everything you listed is wrong, same sex marriage, abortion, and steam cell research. How can all of you say its ok to kill a baby?????? But its ok to do steam cell????????????????? I dont get it?????????????????? I am by no means a repb. but or dem for that matter. I just dont get how you can say its ok to kill a baby but use stem cell to save lives???????????????????? Thats kind of fucked up. THINK ABOUT IT!

Are you trying to single-handedly deplete the universe's question mark supply?


We apparently have differing views on these issues.

shiraz

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

I'm so thrilled that his first veto will be motivated by religion and ideology...

Congress, White House on collision course over stem cells

Bush promises to block expansion of embryonic research
Tuesday, July 18, 2006; Posted: 9:32 a.m. EDT (13:32 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- In an emotional session marked by tales of death and hope, the Senate debated on Monday whether the government should pay for new embryonic stem cell research, pushing a measure to do it toward passage and President Bush's first veto.

"He would veto the bill," the White House declared in a written statement, underlining the words for emphasis.

That quieted speculation by supporters that Bush, perhaps persuaded by new science and strong public support for embryonic stem cell research, would reverse course and sign the legislation into law.

Though several Republican Senate leaders support the measure, many GOP lawmakers oppose it, as do conservative voters in a midterm election year.

"The bill would compel all American taxpayers to pay for research that relies on the intentional destruction of human embryos for the derivation of stem cells, overturning the president's policy that funds research without promoting such ongoing destruction," the White House said.

Behind the scenes, former first lady Nancy Reagan lobbied lawmakers on the bill's behalf. Her husband, President Reagan, died in 2004 after a long deterioration from Alzheimer's disease, one of several illnesses that researchers say stem cell research might eventually cure.

"She is still restless on this issue," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Massachusetts. "We all know this debate has moved further down the road toward a hopeful conclusion because of her work."

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, a cancer survivor, said his disease is one of many that might be cured sooner with the engine of federal funding behind embryonic stem cell research.

Specter compared opposition to the bill to historical resistance to research that led to space travel and landmark vaccinations "to show how attitudes at different times in retrospect look foolish, look absolutely ridiculous."

"There is just no sensible, logical reason why we would not make use of stem cell research," he said.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a transplant surgeon whose negotiations permitted the bill to come to the floor after being stalled for a year, attributed the opposition to "fear [that] can also delay scientific advances that are out there before us."

"We've got to work together to allow science to advance" within ethical boundaries, the Tennessee Republican said.

Drawing boundaries
Where to draw those boundaries is the heart of the debate.

Bush and his allies believe embryos are nascent human life worth more than the advances they might make through stem cell science and point out that embryonic stem cell research is years away from clinical trials, let alone cures for disease.

They rejected arguments that only leftover embryos from fertility clinics would be used.

"Just because the budding lives would not survive does not mean that we should ghoulishly conduct experiments on them," said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Kentucky. "Who knows how many human embryos we will have to destroy before any tangible progress is made?"

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, appeared with three children adopted from in vitro fertilization clinics in an effort to put faces on the argument that frozen embryos could have a future other than being subjects of stem cell research.(Poster's note- Are you fucking kidding me?? )

"It is immoral to destroy the youngest of human lives for research purposes," Brownback said. "It is an age-old human debate, whether you allow the stronger to take advantage of the weaker. We have already regretted doing it in the past; we will regret this, too."(Poster's note- So, does he mean that cancer patients and people with spinal cord injuries are "the strong" and embryos are "the weak"? Jeeeezus... )

Neither house has demonstrated the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto. Vote counters on both sides said they expected the Senate to pass the bill with at least 60 votes, but they could not predict there would be the required 67 for a veto override.

The House last year fell 50 votes short of a veto-proof margin when it passed the same bill, 238-194.

The Senate was slated to vote Tuesday afternoon. Bush was expected to veto the bill early Wednesday, followed by the House's override effort.

Two related bills also are scheduled for votes Tuesday in both the House and Senate. One, sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, would encourage study on stem cells derived from sources other than embryos.

The other, sponsored by Santorum and Brownback, would ban so-called fetal farming, the possibility of developing fetuses, then aborting them for scientific research.

Both bills have little or no opposition, and Bush is expected to sign them.

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


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/17/congress.stemcells.ap/index.html

What a shame )-:

I hope the US will overcome the obstacles of embryonic stem cells research. In Israel we have lots of support for these kind of researchs, scientists are using donated gametes or ones which were supposed to be destroyed. In terms of religion, Judaism has no ethical claims against stem cells research, because it is not perceived as a 'living creature'.

RockinInCanada

shiraz wrote:

What a shame )-:

I hope the US will overcome the obstacles of embryonic stem cells research. In Israel we have lots of support for these kind of researchs, scientists are using donated gametes or ones which were supposed to be destroyed. In terms of religion, Judaism has no ethical claims against stem cells research, because it is not perceived as a 'living creature'.

Good to hear...