Jump to content

Senate Passes Stem Cell Bill


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :unsure: (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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...