Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill

[Phlegm]

Bush vetoes stem cell bill on Wednesday, rejecting legislation that would ease limits on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. This is his first veto. The embryonic stem-cell research provides hope to millions of Americans suffering from Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer and other diseases. But backers in the House didn't have the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto.

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

[Captain Insano]

PRAISE TEH LROD!

what a fucking idiot. I'm all for tearing out newborns spinal cords like Raiden in Mortal Kombat so that people like superman can walk again.

[Narrock]

I'm glad he finally veto'd something. Bush has been spending like there's no tomorrow, so this was a good thing to veto for several different reasons.

[Harrison]

No, it was a fucking moronic move.

[Lueyen]

Proponents of embryonic stem cell research laud the potential, but not results. Adult stem cell research has had a wide array of varying successes. If as Proponents claim there is so much potential for results with embryonic stem cells, why isn't medicinal based private industry willing to pony up the cash to support the research? Wouldn't the return on the investment be worth the research? This if anything should tell you that the potential is not as proven or as likely as supporters would have you believe.

No, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is a political ploy to further devalue the life of an unborn child, further entrenching abortion in our society.

Frankly for someone who finds it morally reprehensible due to religious beliefs it is a violation of civil rights. If tax payer money goes to something like this you have government forcing citizens to pay for something directly contradictory to their religious beliefs.

If fetal stem cell research is that promising and that important to the people who are trying to push it through, if there is not political agenda behind it and their motives are honest, why not pursue something along the lines of a write off for donations or allowing you to put a certain percentage of your income tax toward it? Considering the large amount of people who hold a deep seeded moral or religious objection to it, wouldn't something along these lines have a much better chance at actually reaching their goals (if indeed the motives are purely medicinal and scientific)?

Nope, Bush made an intelligent decision if only from a financial standpoint. If the evidence to support possible medical benefits isn't strong enough to get prominent private sector support, why on earth should the tax payers fund it?

[Arlos]

No, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is a political ploy to further devalue the life of an unborn child, further entrenching abortion in our society.

Your tinfoil hat is slipping.

-Arlos

[Captain Insano]

They should spend the money that isn't going to stem cell research to find a way to transplant a human head on a fully cybernetic killing machine, made from a cool metal like thorium or perhaps mithril.

[Captain Insano]

Mining skill: 145 and rising.

[Jay]

Inc pseudo abortion debate

[Lyion]

Stop using common sense, Lueyen.

If its that important, use your own goddamn money. We shouldn't need federal funds.

[Snero]

off for donations or allowing you to put a certain percentage of your income tax toward it?

and this is also a form of the federal government giving money to research, just indirectly. Also anybody claiming that the private sector should be footing the bill for the research if it's "this promising" is totally missing the boat. The fact is in a whole lot of cases, a lot of research can only really be funded by public money. Pharmaceutical companies are only interested in the bottom line and how to make money the quickest, cheapest and easiest and this doesn't fit that criteria. For years there was very little, if any privately funded research on aids drugs because there was no money to be made in it, this changed when the disease became a lot more common in north america. Big drug companies are not out to cure people, they are out to make money, and that's why you don't want to rely on them for all your research. Hell even now the scientific research system is massively screwed up, when I was writing my thesis, my supervisor spent more time writing grant proposals then she actually did doing any kind of research.

[Zanchief]

No, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is a political ploy to further devalue the life of an unborn child, further entrenching abortion in our society.

Couldn't you say the same for vetoing the bill? It could be viewed as just a ploy to futher value the life of an unborn fetus.

[Gidan]

Proponents of embryonic stem cell research laud the potential, but not results. Adult stem cell research has had a wide array of varying successes. If as Proponents claim there is so much potential for results with embryonic stem cells, why isn't medicinal based private industry willing to pony up the cash to support the research? Wouldn't the return on the investment be worth the research? This if anything should tell you that the potential is not as proven or as likely as supporters would have you believe.

No, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is a political ploy to further devalue the life of an unborn child, further entrenching abortion in our society.

Frankly for someone who finds it morally reprehensible due to religious beliefs it is a violation of civil rights. If tax payer money goes to something like this you have government forcing citizens to pay for something directly contradictory to their religious beliefs.

If fetal stem cell research is that promising and that important to the people who are trying to push it through, if there is not political agenda behind it and their motives are honest, why not pursue something along the lines of a write off for donations or allowing you to put a certain percentage of your income tax toward it? Considering the large amount of people who hold a deep seeded moral or religious objection to it, wouldn't something along these lines have a much better chance at actually reaching their goals (if indeed the motives are purely medicinal and scientific)?

Nope, Bush made an intelligent decision if only from a financial standpoint. If the evidence to support possible medical benefits isn't strong enough to get prominent private sector support, why on earth should the tax payers fund it?

Comments like yours are exactly why religion and government should have absolutely no connection. A Bill should never be vetoed because the money from it might offend someone’s religious beliefs. If you believe that then you should also believe that our government shouldn’t fund war, we should have private funding since some religions believe is morally wrong to kill for any reason. “Frankly for someone who finds it morally reprehensible due to religious beliefs it is a violation of civil rights. If tax payer money goes to something like this you have government forcing citizens to pay for something directly contradictory to their religious beliefs.â€

[Zanchief]

Well if the majority of people want something that also seems to be in line with a religious sentiment, it isn't really unconstitutional to pass (or veto) a bill that supports it.

Technically murder is a religious issue, it doesn't mean you can't pass a law against it.

Ohhh arguing both sides of the argument is fun!

[KILL]

If tax payer money goes to something like this you have government forcing citizens to pay for something directly contradictory to their religious beliefs.

Ohh the HORROR!




Enjoy it while it lasts, fuckers.

[Donnel]

The score: Adult Stem Cells vs. Embryonic, 72 - 0


Adult Stem Cells

Cancers:
1. Brain Cancer
2. Retinoblastoma
3. Ovarian Cancer
4. Skin Cancer: Merkel Cell Carcinoma
5. Testicular Cancer
6. Tumors abdominal organs Lymphoma
7. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
8. Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
9. Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
10. Acute Myelogenous Leukemia
11. Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia
12. Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia
13. Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia
14. Cancer of the lymph nodes: Angioimmunoblastic Lymphadenopathy
15. Multiple Myeloma
16. Myelodysplasia
17. Breast Cancer
18. Neuroblastoma
19. Renal Cell Carcinoma
20. Various Solid Tumors
21. Soft Tissue Sarcoma
22. Ewing’s Sarcoma
23. Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia
24. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis
25. POEMS syndrome
26. Myelofibrosis

Auto-Immune Diseases
27. Systemic Lupus
28. Sjogren’s Syndrome
29. Myasthenia
30. Autoimmune Cytopenia
31. Scleromyxedema
32. Scleroderma
33. Crohn’s Disease
34. Behcet’s Disease
35. Rheumatoid Arthritis
36. Juvenile Arthritis
37. Multiple Sclerosis
38. Polychondritis
39. Systemic Vasculitis
40. Alopecia Universalis
41. Buerger’s Disease

Cardiovascular
42. Acute Heart Damage
43. Chronic Coronary Artery Disease

Ocular
44. Corneal regeneration

Immunodeficiencies
45. Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome
46. X-linked Lymphoproliferative Syndrome
47. X-linked Hyper immunoglobulin M Syndrome

Neural Degenerative Diseases and Injuries
48. Parkinson’s Disease
49. Spinal Cord Injury
50. Stroke Damage

Anemias and Other Blood Conditions
51. Sickle Cell Anemia
52. Sideroblastic Anemia
53. Aplastic Anemia
54. Red Cell Aplasia
55. Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia
56. Thalassemia
57. Primary Amyloidosis
58. Diamond Blackfan Anemia
59. Fanconi’s Anemia
60. Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection

Wounds and Injuries
61. Limb Gangrene
62. Surface Wound Healing
63. Jawbone Replacement
64. Skull Bone Repair

Other Metabolic Disorders
65. Hurler’s Syndrome
66. Osteogenesis Imperfecta
67. Krabbe Leukodystrophy
68. Osteopetrosis
69. Cerebral X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy

Liver Disease
70. Chronic Liver Failure
71. Liver Cirrhosis

Bladder Disease
72. End-Stage Bladder Disease

Embryonic Stem Cells

NONE

[Granh]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQEg3WJ9MQk

[Lueyen]

No, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is a political ploy to further devalue the life of an unborn child, further entrenching abortion in our society.

Couldn't you say the same for vetoing the bill? It could be viewed as just a ploy to futher value the life of an unborn fetus.

Yes you could and you would be correct.

[Lueyen]

off for donations or allowing you to put a certain percentage of your income tax toward it?

and this is also a form of the federal government giving money to research, just indirectly.

Yes that was the point to an extent. If private sector will not fund it, and if it really isn't about abortion, if there is really a genuine non political need for federal funding, either a tax break for donations or the ability to say that some of your tax dollars (not the refund) go toward it you accomplish federal funding via those who find it acceptable. This would have the greatest chance of success imho, yet nothing like this was proposed, because again, this isn't about science, or medicinal development.

[Captain Insano]

I hope the Chinese develop this technology, patent it and make a fuckin bazillion dollars while the U.S. sits around at bible study waiting for jesus to save them from cancer.

[Snero]

whether there is a tax break for donations, or if you offer people to put a % of their income tax towards stem cell research, in both cases you still have government money going towards stem cell research which is exactly what you claimed you were against because it was the government using federal money towards something you were moraly objecting to.

And again to repeat myself, the private sector is not out to heal people, they are out to make money. I don't blame them, thats capitalism, but it's foolish to think that they will fund research for the greater good

[Lueyen]

whether there is a tax break for donations, or if you offer people to put a % of their income tax towards stem cell research, in both cases you still have government money going towards stem cell research which is exactly what you claimed you were against because it was the government using federal money towards something you were morally objecting to.

No I was not objecting to federal funding going toward the research as I was objecting to MY tax dollars going to the research, because I do find it ethically questionable. I realize others do not, and that there is a degree of truth in the possibility that it may yield some results. What a tax break or % of income tax would do is give it funding in direct proportion to the number of people who thought it was a viable and worthwhile option. As Donnel pointed out there have been a lot of positive results from adult stem cell research. This however does not equate into guaranteed similar results in embryonic research. The difference being that adults stem cell research has been around for a lot longer, however with embryonic stem cells, what has been done to date has yield very little if any progress. If the research showed merit, and decent results it would gain support and be funded, if it fails which for the most part it has to date, it doesn't be come a government sponsored waste of money. In the end if supporters of fetal stem cell research were truly interested in the actual research, and believed that it would show positive results then this would be the best way to garner the research funds from the government. As it is nothing like this is being pursued.

And again to repeat myself, the private sector is not out to heal people, they are out to make money. I don't blame them, thats capitalism, but it's foolish to think that they will fund research for the greater good

While I agree, the fact remains that if the possibilities are feasible and wonderful as supporters would have us believe, there would be the economic incentive for the private sector to support the research. I cited this lack of support under no illusions about the monetary motivation, it's an indication of how viable the research really is at least in the context of what possible cures are being equated to it.

[Arlos]

You realize that they're not proposing deliberately aborting fetuses just to do the research, right? They're taking unwanted frozen embryos left over at fertility clinics that are going to be effectively flushed down the toilet anyway. Yes, that's right, those embryos would be destroyed whether or not they were used for stem cell research. The veto just means they're going to be tossed to no purpose.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

If this is going to be so groundbreaking and changing, why isn't there more private investment?

All this means is there isn't federal matching funds for embryonic stem cells. Nor should there be if the guy who signs the bill into legislation feels its immoral. W has stated time and again he is against it. That won't be changing.

It's interesting to see Arlos, a leading proponent in complaining about corporate welfare want to give even more millions to pharmacuetical companies for something that is a pie in the sky idea that financiers shy away from en masse.

[vonkaar]

Melissa Hart Needs a Stem Cell Lesson
By: John Amato on Thursday, July 20th, 2006 at 1:12 PM - PDT


Yesterday, Ms. Hart from PA, defended Bush’s veto on stem cell research. The problem is she cites the wrong science to defend Bush. What’s up with PA for voting some of the wildest people in office? People like her will say anything at all to back up their positions.

Hart: I thank the gentleman from Ohio for alloting me time to speak in favor of sustaining the President’s veto. It’s been a year since this House passed the Castle-Degette bill. In that year, science–not Hollywood–has helped us to debunk the myth of a promise for embryonic stem cell research. Hollywood supports it. Science created fraudulent experiments. Before last year’s vote, they made arguments supporting embryonic stem cell research. They were coming fast and furious from our colleagues. During the debate in the Senate, the same arguments came. They cited Dr. Wong Wuk Suk of South Korea and his research. Supporters of his research said that he had cloned a human embryo; that he had found a way to produce embryonic stem cell lines that could be done routinely and efficiently. What happened later?

All of his research was debunked. The ethics of his research were called into question. It was revealed that his publications were faked, his experiments were unsuccessful, and the treatment of their egg donors as ethically grossly appalling. Mr. Speaker, I urge us to reject embryonic stem cell research as the science is not there. Since it is successful in treating patients using adult stem cells, and cord blood stem cells which we agreed to fund and the President signed and I believe we should support that and I yield back.

DeGetter: Of course the gentle-lady from Pennsylvania refers to the South Korea experiment which was not embryonic stem cell research rather it was somatic cell nuclear transfer, not at issue today…