I could understand a normal President vetoing this... but reserving it for your first veto in 5.5 years?...

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/19/D8IV7GKG0.html

Quote :

"Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill As Promised Jul 19 2:21 PM US/Eastern By MARY DALRYMPLE Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - President Bush cast the first veto of his 5 1/2-year presidency Wednesday, rejecting legislation to ease limits on federal funding for research on stem cells obtained from embryos. "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 at a White House event where he was surrounded by 18 families who "adopted" frozen embryos that were not used by other couples, and then used those leftover embryos to have children. "Each of these children was still adopted while still an embryo and has been blessed with a chance to grow, to grow up in a loving family. These boys and girls are not spare parts," he said. The veto came a day after the Senate defied Bush and approved the legislation, 63-37, four votes short of the two-thirds margin needed to override. White House officials and Republican congressional leaders claimed it was unlikely that Congress could override the veto. Bush's support was the strongest in the House, which was expected to take up the veto as early as later Wednesday. Bush has supported federally funded research on only those stem cell lines created before Aug. 9, 2001, the date of his speech to the nation on the subject. The president vetoed the measure shortly after it came to his desk. His position was politically popular among conservative Republicans, and it was sure to be an issue in the midterm congressional elections. Bush has made 141 veto threats during his time in office, and the Republicans controlling Congress typically respond by changing bills to his liking. Bush's stand against stem cells is popular among conservative Republicans that the party will rely on in the congressional elections this fall. Those opponents are the same voters who have felt alienated by Bush's actions to increase legal immigration, and the veto could bring them back into the fold. Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=421388



[Edited on July 19, 2006 at 2:33 PM. Reason : DAMN YOU JOSHNUMBERS ]

7/19/2006 2:30:47 PM

glad he did.

7/19/2006 2:34:36 PM

Quote :

"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 at a White House event where he was surrounded by 18 families who "adopted" frozen embryos that were not used by other couples, and then used those leftover embryos to have children. "

id like to understand this a little better...and maybe the people that agree with him can explain it to me. the way i see it, there is no way that all the frozen embryos stand a chance at being adopted, so they will more then likely be destroyed or left frozen for x amount of time.

why not use these embryos for the good of mankind? it sound more unethical to me to just throw them away, rather then using them to improve the human race.

am i missing something? ...or am i wrong on my assumptions?

[Edited on July 19, 2006 at 2:40 PM. Reason : df]

7/19/2006 2:40:02 PM

guess it woulda sucked if they used you for stem cell research

7/19/2006 2:40:54 PM

It's better they go in the garbage, am i rite?!?

7/19/2006 2:41:07 PM

Quote :

"guess it woulda sucked if they used you for stem cell research"

look, im trying to understand your side of things.

so what do they do with the unused embryos then? do they throw them away? do they keep them forever frozen somewhere? i have a hard time believing that every embryo is adopted....am i incorrect in this thought?

[Edited on July 19, 2006 at 2:43 PM. Reason : df]

7/19/2006 2:42:49 PM

I DON'T CARE IF YOU GOT PARALYZED WHEN A DRUNK DRIVER SIDESWIPED YOUR CAR, NO STEM CELL RESEARCH FOR YOU!!!

7/19/2006 3:01:22 PM

Look, Logic has no place here ok.

7/19/2006 3:02:59 PM

Quote :

"It's better they go in the garbage, am i rite?!?"

Yeah that way the godless liberals won't have any excuse to keep killing innocent angel babies!

7/19/2006 3:12:17 PM

ok this is one of the first things i've found so far. granted, i haven't looked very hard, but it answers some questions, so...

Quote :

"In vitro fertilization (IVF), one of the more common forms of ART, entails extracting a woman's eggs, fertilizing them in the laboratory, and then transferring the resulting embryos into the woman's uterus in hopes that a healthy pregnancy and birth will follow."

ok we all pretty much know that. the point is, many embryos from the same woman are fertilized for a better chance of pregnancy when they are implanted in the woman.

Quote :

"In most cases, however, more fertilized embryos are available through IVF than are needed or used. A nationwide survey conducted by the American Society of Reproductive Medicine and the Rand Corporation found that 400,000 unused frozen embryos are currently being stored in fertility clinics.[2] As the practice of IVF grows, so will the number of banked frozen embryos..."

this article was written in 2003. in 2003 there were 400,000 unused embryos...

Quote :

"At the heart of the matter is how, if at all, do couples dispose of or dispense remaining frozen embryos that they no longer believe they will use for their own conception purposes. "There are essentially 4 options available to parents," says Nanette Elster, reproductive law expert and Assistant Professor at the University of Louisville Institute for Bioethics..."Couples can opt to leave them in storage, donate them to an infertile couple, donate them to research, or allow them to thaw and be destroyed."

Quote :

"Although couples enter into contractual arrangements with fertility clinics on the front end of IVF services, most contracts require that the couple "re-consent" a second time before subsequent action is actually taken on remaining frozen embryos. But what if a couple can't decide, or a fertility clinic loses contact with them over the years? "If after 5 years the clinic fails through a good-faith effort to locate the parents of the frozen embryos, then our position is that the clinics are not obligated to continue storage," says Sean Tipton, administrator of the public affairs office of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (personal communication with Sean Tipton, administrator, Office of Public Affairs, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Washington, DC, May 16, 2003). "They cannot use the embryos for another purpose, but they don't have to store them in perpetuity.""

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/456483

Quote :

"i have a hard time believing that every embryo is adopted....am i incorrect in this thought?"

if you're interested, the article goes on the further explain how "embryo adoption" is a misnomer

[Edited on July 19, 2006 at 3:29 PM. Reason : .]

7/19/2006 3:27:47 PM

Doesn't Bush realize that the embryos, instead of going towards anti-Christian godless scientific research, are now going to go to impregnate bulldyke women and ultimately become children raised by gay parents?

7/19/2006 3:30:33 PM

Quote :

"They cannot use the embryos for another purpose, but they don't have to store them in perpetuity."""

so they throw them away.

so, my question to everyone that feels that this veto is good: if a different bill was written, that specifically says that federal funding could only be used for research on stem cells obtained from embryos marked for disposal, would you agree with that?

even though i don't agree with you, i understand why you don't want embryos used, but if they are just going to be thrown away, why not use them for good?

[Edited on July 19, 2006 at 3:32 PM. Reason : was]

7/19/2006 3:31:52 PM

sell them to baseball players who are nervous about using anabolic steroids and HGH now so they can continue to juice

7/19/2006 3:34:43 PM

Quote :

"but if they are just going to be thrown away, why not use them for good?"

good question. i think the majority of americans are asking the same thing, but still haven't been given an actual answer. i know i'd like to hear someone's reasoning

[Edited on July 19, 2006 at 3:36 PM. Reason : .]

7/19/2006 3:34:58 PM

probably because just like we all have the freedom to bash Bush, he has the freedom to veto a bill

7/19/2006 3:36:32 PM

this thread is like 6 posts in. can't your shit wait until the adults finish talking?

7/19/2006 3:37:22 PM

Quote :

"good question. i think the majority of americans are asking the same thing, but still haven't been given an actual answer. i know i'd like to hear someone's reasoning"

as would i....from what i understand, its not illegal to use embryonic stem cells, and thats not what this bill is about. this bill is about federally funding research using embryonic stem cells, which makes me believe this is strictly the government trying to push its ethical stance on science, without going all the way.

oh, and just ignore treetwista.

7/19/2006 3:42:03 PM

Quote :

"if a different bill was written, that specifically says that federal funding could only be used for research on stem cells obtained from embryos marked for disposal, would you agree with that?"

actually, it seems that is just what the bill said:

Quote :

"The bill would have required the federal government to support research using stem cells from excess embryos created as part of fertility treatments and that were due to otherwise be discarded. The written consent of the embryo donors would also have been required."

http://tinyurl.com/j3294

[Edited on July 19, 2006 at 3:49 PM. Reason : link]

7/19/2006 3:48:23 PM

well shit.....im at a loss then.

7/19/2006 3:53:17 PM

Quote :

"guess it woulda sucked if they used you for stem cell research "

What bush is not telling you is that other completely embryos are destroyed in the process of adopting an embryo. You think they pluck a single egg and a single sperm and allow them to join, and implant them? No. They create a bunch of embyos, implant a bunch of them, and hope that one of them sticks, in the process allowing several dozens of them to be destroyed.

This is nothing but pandering to idiots.

7/19/2006 4:03:20 PM

and TGD moves one more step closer to re-registering as a Democrat.

7/19/2006 4:12:55 PM

Quote :

"Doesn't Bush realize that the embryos, instead of going towards anti-Christian godless scientific research, are now going to go to impregnate bulldyke women and ultimately become children raised by gay parents?"

7/19/2006 4:24:35 PM

Quote :

"2:30:47 PM"

mine was 2 mins earlier

[Edited on July 19, 2006 at 4:32 PM. Reason : plus my thread has a real thread title]

7/19/2006 4:31:19 PM

jwb, please enlighten all of us with your vast array of knowledge since you are so intelligent and really the only one on TWW who has a clue about anything

7/19/2006 4:35:16 PM

if all embryoes are life, then fertility clinics do genocide

7/19/2006 4:42:59 PM

Quote :

"jwb TreeTwista, please enlighten amaze all of us with your vast array of knowledge ignorance since you are so intelligent completely braindead and really the only one on TWW who has a clue about anything absolutely nothing at all."

7/19/2006 4:44:29 PM

wow...using the strikeout code...pretty impressive...thats sure to expedite you getting off TWW and doing something thats worth a fuck

why dont some of you who think you're so smart do something a little more productive than arguing on TWW

maybe because you're not so smart

7/19/2006 4:58:32 PM

why don't you add something to the thread?

add your opinion on stem cells, by all means. if you agree with bush's decision, please explain why.

a lot of people, including myself, are curious as to why the veto sits well with some people.

7/19/2006 5:21:07 PM

maybe some people dont give a fuck, like me

why dont you respect my constitutional freedom of expression instead of trying to silence my speech

7/19/2006 5:21:44 PM

so you have nothing to add. kindly leave the thread.

7/19/2006 5:23:49 PM

no i'll kindly stay...i have constitutional freedoms...you burn your flags...i'll post in this thread...its freedoms guaranteed right?

7/19/2006 5:24:48 PM

I was wondering when you'd finally notice...

7/19/2006 6:07:14 PM

oh well. another 2 years before we get this research started.

7/19/2006 6:36:03 PM

Quote :

"id like to understand this a little better...and maybe the people that agree with him can explain it to me. the way i see it, there is no way that all the frozen embryos stand a chance at being adopted, so they will more then likely be destroyed or left frozen for x amount of time. why not use these embryos for the good of mankind? it sound more unethical to me to just throw them away, rather then using them to improve the human race. am i missing something? ...or am i wrong on my assumptions?"

I actually like stem cell research, but I can give you the other side of the argument. It opens the door for people actually being paid for their embryos, meaning that people will be incentized to create life (if you believe it begins at conception) only in order to destroy it.

My issue with stem cell research is that the federal government isn't necessary for research to happen. People will invest in the most promising research. The government is simply notorious for wasting our money on senseless research.

So, even though I support stem cell research (I'm a shareholder in ASTM), I'm okay with this veto because it prevents the government from getting involved where capitalism will suffice.

/libertarianism.

7/19/2006 10:17:11 PM

Quote :

"oh well. another 2 years before we get this research started"

This research IS started. I think what you mean is: another 2 years before the government gets its heavy-handed money-wasting beauracracy involved.

Stem cell research, even on embryonic lines, is perfectly legal and happens every single day.

7/19/2006 10:26:11 PM

^The balanced government-private industry cooperation that has characterized america for over a hundred years works pretty well, contrary to your lack of evidence that says otherwise.

[Edited on July 19, 2006 at 11:00 PM. Reason : sdfsdf]

7/19/2006 10:59:27 PM

I enjoy your equally-impressive lack of evidence.

7/19/2006 11:00:58 PM

In case your reasoning skills are weak, you are the one who is arguing against the status quo of state-private industry cooperation. The burden of proof is on you to show that change would be for the better.

I am quite satisfied with the status quo that has led to the united states status as the richest, most advanced, and most powerful country in the world.

7/19/2006 11:38:48 PM

Quote :

"The burden of proof is on you "

this is the most meaningless uninspiring rhetoric ive seen all year

7/19/2006 11:44:20 PM

maybe he was saving it up for that

7/19/2006 11:57:34 PM

Uninspiring? Perhaps. Meaningless? No:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(logical_fallacy)

7/20/2006 12:01:08 AM

so you are admitting that using that rhetoric is logical fallacy?

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 12:15 AM. Reason : asdfwqer]

7/20/2006 12:15:39 AM

That is exactly what I am doing, champ.

7/20/2006 12:19:31 AM

Let's look at examples of the private sector taking risks on scientific long-shots without government cooperation:

[crickets]

7/20/2006 12:49:18 AM

boonedocks...

Perhaps you've proved why we shouldn't waste federal money on it in the first place

Its a scientific longshot. Maybe putting resources in less risky environments for research is better.
But beyond that, I'm sure there are examples of private research investing in longshots.
Like current stem cell research, perhaps?

7/20/2006 7:14:41 AM

Everyone knocks on how he is such a dumbass

If he is really so dumb, how in the hell has so many of his agendas made it through?

Its all a facade to fool all you liberal tools

7/20/2006 8:18:53 AM

^^my main problem with this is that it basically prevents universities from doing research with stem cells at all. because as i understand it, if you do any embryonic stem cell research in your lab, you cannot get federal funding. this means that nearly all school labs (and many private ones with gov't contracts) cannot participate in the research.

the vast majority of research in america is a partnership between academia and privately funded groups. in this particular case, the federal gov't is crippling this arrangement by putting universities out of the picture.

7/20/2006 8:42:24 AM

^^off topic, being smart really has nothing to do with your agenda getting through. the republicans have been in the majority his entire presidency so of course some of his agenda has moved through. had he been in the minority and gotten a lot of his ideas through, then, i would say he had some smarts.

...but i dont agree that "so many of his agendas made it through". look at some of the big things he was pushing for: gay marriage constitutional amendment and privatising (sp?) social security...they both failed.

back on topic:

Quote :

"So, even though I support stem cell research (I'm a shareholder in ASTM), I'm okay with this veto because it prevents the government from getting involved where capitalism will suffice. "

if it truely is the case that federal funding won't really improve the current research being done, then why is this such a big fuss? is it just a political toy? are people misinformed? what do the scientists that are actually performing the research think...are they happy with it just being funded privately, or would they prefer the government get involved?

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 8:43 AM. Reason : df]

7/20/2006 8:42:49 AM

Quote :

"is it just a political toy?"

Yes.

7/20/2006 9:04:13 AM

It might be his first veto in five and a half years because congress has been republican dominated over that time period. Just a thought you know........

7/21/2006 12:18:20 AM