hasn't he caused enough people to die in iraq? must he ruin potential of stem cell research saving lives? times
Has anyone seen a link to a good summary of what the bill actually wants? I wish these news articles provided links to references.
Thanks insane man This looks like the amendment to the previous bill. They added ethical part which states that only discarded embryos from fertility treatments. There is also a part that implies more research for for adult pluripotent cells. I guess my concern would be that, if when writing this bill; if it was known that the president would veto it, why didn't they write a section to allow federal funding for adult pluripotent federal funding?
iraq has nothing to do with this, theres no point to even mention that besides to complicate the issue. There are ethical considerations here (with embryonic cells) and i think its wise to move into this area slowly. He's ruining potential research? i can picture him walking around labs and pissing in their petry dishes... I think its important to realize that stem cell research doesnt have to be embryonic.
It's official; Bush, once again, gives the finger to the country and goes against what 70% of right thinking Americans want.
FACTBOX-Embryonic stem cell research Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:59 PM ET June 20 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush was set on Wednesday to veto legislation to expand federally funded embryonic stem cell research, aides said. Following are some facts about stem cells. * Stem cells are the body's master cells, the source of all cells and tissue, like brain, blood, heart, bones, muscles and skin. * Embryonic stem cells come from days-old embryos and can produce any type of cell in the body. * Adult stem cells are harbored in blood and mature tissue in the bodies of children and adults. They are more specialized than embryonic cells and give rise to specific cell types, although they may be coaxed into a broader range of cell types under the right conditions. * Scientists generally harvest embryonic stem cells from embryos left over after in vitro fertilization attempts at fertility clinics. They can also be produced using cloning technology. * Scientists hope to harness the transformational qualities of stem cells to provide treatments for a variety of diseases affecting millions of people worldwide, including brain cells for Parkinson's disease, pancreatic cells for diabetes and nerve cells for spinal-cord injuries. * The issue is controversial because some people believe the destruction of any embryo is wrong. Leaders of the Roman Catholic Church and some other religious and conservative political figures hold this view, though some opponents of abortion rights support embryonic stem-cell research. Reuters From an article concerning the veto: "If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers -- for the first time in our history -- to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos," the White House said. "The president has made it clear ... that he will not allow the nation to cross this moral line." Please, please let our illustrious president get cystic fibrosis. (thank you President ****ing Bush, you ****ing ****, for saving all the taxpayers from paying for an immoral objective).
Anyone have any idea what happens to these "days old embryos" if they are not used for research? They don't become humans. They get trashed. So why not use them for science? The "moral argument" in this case is immoral.
i personally dont have a problem with using embryonic stems cells but im also pro choice. That being said i understand the veto. Anyone pro lifers for this bill?
no, but how many people will die in the extra time needed to find those answers, all to save a frozen, non-thinking, non-conscious, egg.
so you think the only thing holding the key to finding the cure and saving all these lives is money? i know what you mean, but even if it was funded its still a long ways away. like i said, im for it but i also understand the approach of this subject with caution. there is a lot of promise that can be had but realistically, how close are they really? i'd be surprised if even with floods of money being dumped into the reasearch i would guess it would be almost 10 years before any direct benefit starts to be seen on a wide scale. then again, im not an expert but i understand that "promising" doesnt mean an answer is close. Cancer researches are always finding promising things but its a long process, gene therapy for example.
Bush vetoes bill to fund stem-cell research But Snow argued that Bush's policy has actually opened the door to federal stem cell research. "The notion that we are against stem cell research is wrong," he said. "No administration has been more aggressive."
another sad, sad day for the bush admin. you would think he'd want to improve his image, and apporve the bill... i've never seen any president make so many decisions based only on ideology the dumbest and worst president of all time
