jdobbin Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/18/washingt...artner=homepage Will it hurt or help Republicans for fall elections? Quote
gc1765 Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/18/washingt...artner=homepageWill it hurt or help Republicans for fall elections? I don't know how it will affect the election, many republicans supported the bill. If americans are smart they won't vote for those who voted against the bill. I can't believe bush is going to veto it, it just doesn't make sense to me. Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
jdobbin Posted July 19, 2006 Author Report Posted July 19, 2006 I don't know how it will affect the election, many republicans supported the bill. If americans are smart they won't vote for those who voted against the bill.I can't believe bush is going to veto it, it just doesn't make sense to me. It's Bush's right to veto a bill. I just don't know how it will help Republicans when they say I supported the bill but my leader vetoed it. Quote
gc1765 Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 I don't know how it will affect the election, many republicans supported the bill. If americans are smart they won't vote for those who voted against the bill. I can't believe bush is going to veto it, it just doesn't make sense to me. It's Bush's right to veto a bill. I just don't know how it will help Republicans when they say I supported the bill but my leader vetoed it. I understand it's his right to veto the bill, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Stem cell research could potentially save/improve many lives. I'm not an expert on american politics, but I don't think bush is the "leader" of all republicans like it is here in Canada. It is much more common to vote against party lines in the U.S. than Canada. Personally, if a Republican senator voted for the bill and the president vetoed it, I would not hold that against the senator who voted for it as it is not their fault. That is just my opinion, perhaps some americans will see things differently. Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
jdobbin Posted July 19, 2006 Author Report Posted July 19, 2006 I understand it's his right to veto the bill, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Stem cell research could potentially save/improve many lives. I'm not an expert on american politics, but I don't think bush is the "leader" of all republicans like it is here in Canada. It is much more common to vote against party lines in the U.S. than Canada. Personally, if a Republican senator voted for the bill and the president vetoed it, I would not hold that against the senator who voted for it as it is not their fault. That is just my opinion, perhaps some americans will see things differently. I agree on stem cell research. It's hard to say how the public will react. But traditionally, a sitting President loses seats in the house in his sixth year. Since people can't vote against the President this year, they often vote in opposition to him on a Congressional level. At least that is the historical record. Quote
Black Dog Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 I'm really curious about who Bush is playing to with this veto. I can't imagine there are many, even among the kook ranks of pro-life cultural conservatives, who equate blastocysts (basically, embryos that haven't been implanted in the uterus) with actual human beings. Bush is trying to appeal to a minority of a minority at the likely expense of his party as a whole. Baed on that, one could almost conclude that he's not exactly the sharpest tool in the drawer. Shocking, I know. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
America1 Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/18/washingt...artner=homepage Will it hurt or help Republicans for fall elections? I don't know how it will affect the election, many republicans supported the bill. If americans are smart they won't vote for those who voted against the bill. I can't believe bush is going to veto it, it just doesn't make sense to me. It does make sense. 1st, to make things clear, the issue is about EMBROYONIC Stem cells, not all stem cells, and their need to destroy an embryo to conduct research, research that hasn't really produced any viable results (unlike adult stem cells) yet (could be a key word). This too some; is killing a form of life in order to "possibly" find a future cure. Others just feel that the gvt doesn't need to in the business of funding programs that could be funded by the private sector. You know the whole "if there is a market for stem cell research then the market will pay for it to be created/researched". Quote
Michael Hardner Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 Bush is trying to appeal to a minority of a minority at the likely expense of his party as a whole. Baed on that, one could almost conclude that he's not exactly the sharpest tool in the drawer. I guess the idea that he's acting out of his convictions is just not a possibility here ? Quote  Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Charles Anthony Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 I guess the idea that he's acting out of his convictions is just not a possibility here ?I seriously think he is. I would give him the benefit of the doubt. Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Black Dog Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 1st, to make things clear, the issue is about EMBROYONIC Stem cells, not all stem cells, and their need to destroy an embryo to conduct research, research that hasn't really produced any viable results (unlike adult stem cells) yet (could be a key word). This too some; is killing a form of life in order to "possibly" find a future cure. Blastocysts are fertilized eggs that have not been implanted. In other words, they are not embryos, but potential embryos. Jesus, that's like arguing that male masturbation is murder because sperm are all potential lives. (Though I'm sure there's people who believe that too. ) Others just feel that the gvt doesn't need to in the business of funding programs that could be funded by the private sector. You know the whole "if there is a market for stem cell research then the market will pay for it to be created/researched". By the same token then, the government shouldn't provide funding to any research. I'm curious why stem cell research in particular requires such a vigourous application of free-market principles over, say, cancer or ballistic missile defense. MH: I guess the idea that he's acting out of his convictions is just not a possibility here ? That would require the man actually had convictions to begin with. I think it's safe to rule that out. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Michael Hardner Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 That would require the man actually had convictions to begin with. I think it's safe to rule that out. Even if you think that your political opponents are inhuman psychopaths (which is pretty much what you're saying here) you need to invent a conscience for them and pretend its real if you want to debate political issues, because at least some of his followers do have consciences and are intelligent. If you think your opponents are inhuman, then why discuss anything with them at all ? Quote  Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Black Dog Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 Even if you think that your political opponents are inhuman psychopaths (which is pretty much what you're saying here) you need to invent a conscience for them and pretend its real if you want to debate political issues, because at least some of his followers do have consciences and are intelligent. I guess it would be accurate to say that Bush has convictions, but there's no evidence hey are the same one's he espuses in public. Looking at the man's history, his private and political life, there's little to suggest any real belief in all the spiritual mumbo jumbo. He attaches himself to issues that he thinks (or his advisors think) are political point winners. That's the long and short of it. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
gc1765 Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 It does make sense. 1st, to make things clear, the issue is about EMBROYONIC Stem cells, not all stem cells, and their need to destroy an embryo to conduct research... The blastocysts used for creating ESC lines are derived from eggs that were fertilized in in vitro fertilization clinics but never implanted in a woman’s uterus. The resulting embryos were frozen and later donated for research purposes with the informed consent of the donors. Currently, there are over 400,000 unused frozen embryos in U.S. fertility clinics. Link These embryos are not being used and will probably be discarded, why not use them to potentially save lives? Besides, abortion is legal in the U.S., so why get upset over a blastocyst that could be used to save lives? Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent—that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent—restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult stem cells are thought to be. LINK ...research that hasn't really produced any viable results (unlike adult stem cells) yet (could be a key word). The research is relatively new, it takes time to make progress. Especially when funding and stem cell lines are limited and contaminated. This too some; is killing a form of life in order to "possibly" find a future cure. Depends on your definition of life. Personally an embryo a few days old is not "life" to me, but that is a whole different debate that I wont get into right now. If these embryos are just being discarded then that is killing them as well, so what harm does it do to use them for research? And at this point it would appear that the "possibility" of a cure is pretty high. Others just feel that the gvt doesn't need to in the business of funding programs that could be funded by the private sector. You know the whole "if there is a market for stem cell research then the market will pay for it to be created/researched". The government pays for a lot of medical research, in the U.S. though NIH: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services and is the primary agency of the United States government responsible for medical research. The Institutes are responsible for 28% - about $28 billion - of the total biomedical research funding spent annually in the U.S, with most of the rest coming from industry. Link and in Canada through CIHR. If these agencies fund other types of medical research, then why not embryonic stem cell research? I'm not really sure how much profit there is to be made in stem cell research, but it is possible that it's not as profitable as other therapeutics, which means it would get less attention from biotech companies. I'm not sure if that's the case, but it's possible. That is part of the reason why the government funds medical research, to fill in the gaps that are not as profitable. Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
Michael Hardner Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 I guess it would be accurate to say that Bush has convictions, but there's no evidence hey are the same one's he espuses in public. Looking at the man's history, his private and political life, there's little to suggest any real belief in all the spiritual mumbo jumbo. He attaches himself to issues that he thinks (or his advisors think) are political point winners. That's the long and short of it. The only heart you can claim to know is your own. Quote  Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Black Dog Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 The only heart you can claim to know is your own. Thanks, fortune cookie. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Michael Hardner Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 You're welcome. Come again. Quote  Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
jdobbin Posted July 20, 2006 Author Report Posted July 20, 2006 I guess the idea that he's acting out of his convictions is just not a possibility here ? What's your thoughts on it? Quote
jdobbin Posted July 20, 2006 Author Report Posted July 20, 2006 Bush vetoed the bill tonight. In several polls taken in the last weeks, a majority of American supported stem cell research. One of the people who support it is Nancy Reagan. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13934199/ Quote
Black Dog Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 Here's a question: if, as some opponents of the research say, using embryonic stem cells in tantamount to destroying a human life, why quibble over federal funding and new versus old embryos? Why not make it all illegal? Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
jdobbin Posted July 21, 2006 Author Report Posted July 21, 2006 Here's a question: if, as some opponents of the research say, using embryonic stem cells in tantamount to destroying a human life, why quibble over federal funding and new versus old embryos? Why not make it all illegal? Many people often ask what the difference is with fertility clinics. These things are Republican approved and Bush himself has said in speeches that he favours them. But aren't they just killing floors for unused embryos? Talk about hypocritical. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.