Finally a Veto for all the wrong reasons?!?

Yep, this one doesn't make much sense. I'm actually a fan of Presidents NOT issuing vetos very often, as the legislature is really the best reflection of the people's desires, and I'd rather see Presidents use their veto only to scuttle legislation they feel is unconstitutional (a concept originally proposed by George Washington).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 16 2006, 02:39 PM) [snapback]287246[/snapback]</div>

I am not surprised; He said that he would veto this, and it falls in line with his stated position on stem-cell research. This guy does back up his words.

He has not changed; why should he? He does stand by his personal convictions; don't like it? Override the veto. If Congress has any cajones beyond getting re-elected, they will place theirs on the table as far as the President does when he applies a veto.

Get it up, or shut up.

Besides, we don't even know what else was 'pork-barrelled' in this particular bill either; remember the days of hiding other expenditures/policies in side of 'BlackLung' and 'Education' bills?

 

another strike against scientific progress... go figure.

what a *&%^$

 

Folks, let's play a short game of Jeapordy!

I'll pick the category: Presidents for 1000!

In reference to the Constitution this President said, "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

 

So that I understand this, none of you have ANY beliefs or positions that you would not protect or defend?

 

sure, but i wouldn't *force my beliefs on others*... especially when said beliefs could very well hinder progress to ease the suffering of a GREAT number of people.

let's make organ transplants illegal too... after all, at first the religious groups were quite opposed to that. and how many lives have been saved by transplanted organs?

 

Okay, but Congress can override the veto; will they?

How many letters did YOU write to influence Congress on this?

As I stated before, President Bush stated long ago his stance on this subject. He stands by his beliefs. Had he suddenly changed his mid and gone along with it, then I would hear how he has no conviction of his beliefs.

Its a no win for Bush here, isn't it?

If the country REALLY wants this, then Congress will override. Even the article states that research continues.

Surely there must be enough Republicans to join the Righteous Democrats and Independants to override, if this is such 'the right thing'

BTW: While you are at it, thriow in some articles of impeachment, too.

Let us have some votes showing Congressional conviction to issues, too!

 

there's something to be said for changing your mind based upon compelling research- and not just blindly sticking to your guns. but yes, he would have caught lots of flak if he did change his mind.

you can't please everyone... but you can sure enable research into a very promising sources of treatments for currently incurable diseases. those who are morally objected to it can refuse esc derived treatments. but why deny the rest of these folks?

research will continue, but largely privately funded since new lines are no longer allowed governmental funding. that's always a good sign...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jul 17 2006, 06:14 PM) [snapback]287869[/snapback]</div>

Thank you for responding with some civility.

 

Have to throw my $.02 in FWIW. The president has deep religious convictions in which he believes that stem cell research is wrong because in his opinion, it is the sacraficing a human life in the name af research. To that end, I give him credit for his convictions, even though they are different than mine.

From many other peoples standpoint however, it is research on what are basically fertilized eggs that shows great promise in curing what are today uncurable deseases. The diabetes my wife suffers from and the Alzimers (sp?) desease that killed former president Reagan to mention but two.

IMHO this is precisly why we need to have the "Wall of Seperation" between church and state. What the president should do, is state his opinion that he is personaly opposed to such research, but sees no civil laws that it appears to violate. I for one would respect him for such an action, and his religious base should recognize that he was performing his job as president.

 

But part of his statement is not to expend YOUR money on extended lines.

And, as I noted, his veto can be overridden.

As they say, the ball is now in Congress' court.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jul 18 2006, 07:26 AM) [snapback]288116[/snapback]</div>

It looks again that we all are using this article from the OP to justify our personal views on this subject.

As it appears that some did not read the article, here it is:

"BIOWIRE

As President Bush considers using his first veto to strike down an embryonic stem cell research bill, PrimeCell™ Therapeutics' lead stem cell researcher, Francisco Silva, is available to discuss what this means for Americans hoping for therapies to treat a range of life-threatening conditions.

"While all stem cell research is important, a presidential veto would not mean the end of the promise that stem cells show," Silva said. "Hope for effective therapies also lies in the alternatives -- specifically in the therapeutic reprogramming of the germ line."

Silva will discuss an alternative source of cells that share the very characteristic that makes embryonic stem cells so promising for therapy. That quality is their elasticity, or pluripotency -- the ability to transform into any other cell type in the body.

Thanks to new research, there is now a possibility of deriving adult human pluripotent stem cells that do not involve the use of human eggs and/or embryos. These cells are not hampered by the ethical hurdles and scientific challenges that embryonic stem cells face, putting them on a faster track to therapeutic applications.
"

Where in this article does it state that research will end?

 

I support the president on this as I too believe that human life begins at conception. I am against killing humans of all sizes in the name of medical experimentation.

At 14 weeks, my wife's ultrasound sure looks like a baby, a human life. It's still legal to kill that human if two people decide they want to. I'd be very interested to hear the opinnions of the people on here. At what point is that little baby in the womb a human, and when isn't it a human.

Let's start at 9 months, the baby is in the doctors hands. It's crying, that's a human life.
10 minutes earlier, it was inside the mother, was it a human life then? Should it be allowed to be killed?
An hour earlier than that, was it a human life? Can we still kill that one?
A week prior, on the ultrasound, still looks like a baby (human one, alive) to me, should we kill that one?

Keep backing it up... I know at 14 weeks and at 8 weeks, it looks like a baby and I know it's a human life at that point.

Until someone can prove a 'start of life' to be different than the point of conception, that's where it begins for me. If you kill it after that, you've murdered a human in my eyes. The science that has improved in the last 35 years since RvW has been our ability to see in the womb without killing the child. I can't imagine how dark the heart is of a medical professional that can look at that baby and then kill it. Especially the late term or partial birth abortion doctors. Wow.

Side point, but important. If we start funding killing small humans who can't say NO, when do we start killing you after you've had a car wreck and are a quad? He's just a quad, he can't really do much anymore, let's kill him and do an experiement on his brain in the process.

Even though embrionic stem cell research is on going in the US and in the rest of the world, there are so far, 0 cures from it. The word 'promising' is from a bunch of people who want your money so they can put in a pool in the back yard at the end of the day.

There are cures being used from research done using cord blood and adult stem cells. This research doesn't need anyone to die to get started.

The "Force your beliefs" statement is getting about as old as the Jesse Jackson race card. Remember, if we would always lay down the arguement every time you pull out this FYB card, then it would in fact be you FYB on me. Your beliefs are that the federal taxpayer should kill humans to experiment on their dead carcas so that your future cancer or neck injury might be cured. If you get that, and my tax dollars are going to fund the killings of innocent babies, then you in fact have forced your beliefs on me. If you want your money to go to fund embrionic stem cell research, then get out your checkbook and start sending them money. If forcing beliefs is ok, then you won't mind if I force mine on you. ZAP! Now that I've done that, would you please start sticking up for George Bush? Thanks!

If you want my federal tax dollars to go to fund it, then elect a different president. This one campaigned on a promise to veto any such thing, and I trust him to keep that promise. Frist did a 180 on this, and I am disappointed in him for it.

 

Any of you ever seen the movie Lord of War? The opening scene starts with Nicholas Cage speaking about the fetus and evolution... at four months (or four weeks... I forget which) of age the human fetus looks just like that of a reptile's. The following is a picture of a fetus at four weeks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Jul 18 2006, 09:18 AM) [snapback]288187[/snapback]</div>

I think we should ask GWB who he would rather save today? The picture above, or the pictures below?

[attachmentid=4192][attachmentid=4193]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(San Diego Steve @ Jul 18 2006, 11:37 AM) [snapback]288249[/snapback]</div>

Well, there is time.

Did you write him a letter voicing your concerns?

 

First of all, folks, we are talking about embryos, NOT fetuses (which is why it is called embryonic stem cell research.) The embryos used for stem cell research are blastocysts, which are one-week old embryos. The embryos that are used for this type of research are obtained from fertility clinics, and would be discarded if they were not used for research. So no embryos are "created" for research. Although opponents of embryonic stem cell research attempt to promote adult stem cell research, every (scientific) article I have read on the subject indicates that adult stem cells do not have the capability to differentiate into the 200 different kinds of cells in the human body.
This research has the potential to save many lives and to improve the lifes of millions of more people. Even the most vocal right-to-life proponents in Congress (Santorum, Frist, etc.) have endorsed this research. If the government doesn't fund it, it will go on- either privately funded (do we want all of our medical research funded by drug companies?), or our best and brightest researchers will go to other countries that support this work.