Founder and Owner smallory Posted July 22, 2006 Author Founder and Owner Share Posted July 22, 2006 Sandy, the stem cell debate is apparently moving to Europe. Germany is urging other countries in the European Union to not pursue stem cell research. I just heard that this afternoon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Founder and Owner smallory Posted July 22, 2006 Author Founder and Owner Share Posted July 22, 2006 Tom, don't tell me that you actually believed everything that Clinton said, including that he NEVER had sex with that woman, too! You don't have to believe anything that Bush says but he is a man of convictions. He has not yet changed his convictions on the right of the embryo no matter how liberals try to diminish him and his beliefs. He actually believes that it would be wrong and I admire that about him! We have not had a President with his strong character in a long time! The problem with our society is that most of them have lost their moral back bone and would rather give in then take a stance! Nobody has even presented what embryonic stem cell research can do. There actually has been some funding for embryonic stem cells but nobody even recognizes that there was not anything presented to Bush to make him change his mind. Oops, the liberal media probably skewed that information, too, and I cannot be correct because someone read about it in the NY Times that embryonic stem cells will cure EVERYTHING! If something very legitimate was presented to Bush and he did something about it, then, and maybe then, I would question his political motivation. No, he has too much character to let even this change his mind. Two more years until a liberal possibly gets in the White House and then things will probably change on this issue. Anyway, let's hear more about that conspiracy theory, I guess that it's not just the ardent pro lifer who believes in covert actions. Sandy, what is your conspiracy theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssanchez Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 I agree with you Steve 100%, this is the Presidents first veto since he has been in office. I guess its because of our beliefs...<>< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdehaas Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 LOL Steve M. I was beginning to wonder when the C word would pop in to the conversation ! Everytime the going gets a little tough all the right wingers and Fox Friends bring up Clinton..You know it's been 6 years since he was in office. He isn't responsible for the heat wave we're having and he didn't cause Hurricane Katrina, as much as I'm sure righties would love to pin it in him. I'm sure he'd be flattered that he was mentioned. Since we've headed in the muck..I think about the only convictions Bush has..besides U.S. dollars, are the ones his daddy got expunged for cocaine possession and drunk driving...:roflmao: Sorry sandy I don't want to take away from your comments about you Dad, because I think your premise is pretty much on spot here. and btw inre modifying the bill language to account for the concerns of some, James was right, there was an accompanying bill (passed) that addressed that issue. However it was more of a red herring and I think was designed to give some of the repugs some cover. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jriva Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 . The stem cells that he is concerned about right now are the 800,000 frozen stem cells that we are talking about in HR 810. They have the potential for being human life and his own moral conscience prevents him from agreeing that they be destroyed for research. As I understand it these 800,000 frozen embryos are those left over from fertility treatments and could be donated to scientic study, should a bill be passed to allow it. How do they differ from the embryoic stem cells used in 3rd world countries that come from legal abortions? Don't they ALL have the potential for being human life? If it's morally acceptable to go to a 3rd world country for embryoic stem cell treatment then why isn't it morally acceptable to use American frozen embryoic stem cells for study? I'm struggling to understand how someone could approve of the one thing, but not the other. Won't the vast number of the 800,000 frozen embryos be destroyed or will deteriorate anyway? They collect far more than they ever use to implant in women seeking to have babies. Eventually they will be come medical waste. On the subject of our government just approving funding to study other types of stem cells beside the embroyic stem cells, I can understand fully why American scientists don't want their hands tied that way. How will they know if one kind of stem cells does just as good of a job as another if they don't have side-by-side studies? They could waste years of time and money developing something just to have scientists in other countries, whose hands aren't tied, come up with better and cheater treatments in half the time. Jean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdehaas Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 JR That's a good question.. I think part of the answer involves a little hypocrisy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrabbit Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 And....if the 800,000 frozen embryos are indeed viable, and go on to become 800,000 more hungry children in need of health care, what does Bush et al intend to do to insure the sanctity of their lives? In my county alone, 40,000 children go to bed hungry every night and most of them without adequate healthcare. If you are Bush, you could just assume that this is a way to beef up the all "volunteer military" since we all only need review the statistics of the enlisted fighting Bush's war in Iraq. The majority of the enlisted are kids who didn't have a choice but to volunteer. They come from the lower social economic status communities and many have no education at all. They enlist because they 1) need a job, 2) need healthcare and 3) have no other choice. This debate is indeed more than just about stem cell research. It is about the sanctity of life. I will support Bush when he decides to support the sanctity of all humans, including the citizens of this country who are starving to death. If anything is immoral, it is letting people of this and other countries die because social causes don't fit with a republican agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Founder and Owner smallory Posted July 23, 2006 Author Founder and Owner Share Posted July 23, 2006 There seem to be so many angles to whether or not George Bush did the right thing by vetoing this bill. It depends on your walk in life whether he was right or wrong. Nothing is right and nothing is wrong when you get right down to it. We could all go on forever trying to stay on point or inadvertently straying off. Who is right and who is wrong? It's more important to me that we have at least some discussion about it and learned something from it, I know that I did. Just respect the opinions of others and not make this personal with each other. I cannot change the mind of anybody else anymore than they can change mine! We are all friends and can agree to disagree and then go on to something else important. :chat: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdehaas Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 I'll second that emotion! Whew!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristina38 Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 There is no mystery as to why the shrub vetoed this bill. His Presidency is in DEEP trouble, his approval ratings are in the toilet and the Repugs are fearful of losing control of Congress in November. That being said, he must do something to pander to the religious right so they'll once again turn out to vote. You can bet you bottom dollar if he was dying of a disease that might be cured by stem cell research his ass would NOT have vetoed this bill. Just another example of his disregard for human life in the guise of being "morally correct"...As to his "convictions and morals" he has none. His record of lying, killing innocent civilians, and corruption should glaringly point that out... Kristina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Shippy Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 If Mr. Bush were to enter a burning room and in one corner was a three old child and in another corner was a dish with five embryonic stem cells and Bush had time to only save the child or the dish with the five embryonic stem cells, which would he save? This is a classic example of situational ethics. Absolutely dangerous. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Shippy Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 There is no mystery as to why the shrub vetoed this bill. His Presidency is in DEEP trouble, his approval ratings are in the toilet and the Repugs are fearful of losing control of Congress in November. That being said, he must do something to pander to the religious right so they'll once again turn out to vote. You can bet you bottom dollar if he was dying of a disease that might be cured by stem cell research his ass would NOT have vetoed this bill. Just another example of his disregard for human life in the guise of being "morally correct"...As to his "convictions and morals" he has none. His record of lying, killing innocent civilians, and corruption should glaringly point that out... Kristina You are playing politics with a very liberal slant. Bush vetoed for his conviction plain and simple. No politics. The issue of embryonic stem cell is at heart religious. It is inescapably religious whether you are conservative/liberal Catholic, conservative/liberal Protestant, conservative/liberal Jew, conservative/liberal agnostic, conservative/liberal atheist, conservative/liberal pantheist, etc. The issue has far ranging implications. All moral questions requires religious answers. I believe the Bible is the only true and absolute source of moral truth. Yes, there are different interpretations, but The Book is very clear on this issue. Life (body and soul) begins at conception. Despite the myths, there are no (successful) applications being done with embryonic stem cells as compared to many for adult cells. It is only theoretical weather they would be better. I think it will be worse with all the consequences. I had a davastating stroke and will NOT accept embryonic stem cell line for a cure. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Founder and Owner smallory Posted August 6, 2006 Author Founder and Owner Share Posted August 6, 2006 Nicely put, Terry. I agree with everything that you say! People would rather blame Bush rather than try to understand why he did what he did. That is the easy way out. Everybody does things for a reason and if you make up a reason why they did something then you will never understand! People can play the blame game and make up reasons based on their own political agenda and they have closed their minds to what really happened! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwatrous Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 You present a valid point, thanks, but it does seem that our government should fund any medical research, esp. stem cell, as by doing so, this research most likely will save lives in lieu of funding wars that only take lives - Our country should practice the separation of church and state, in making their decisions :2cents: Just June Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.