Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research

[cybercoma]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/washingt...=th&oref=slogin

“Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical,” Mr. Bush said in a brief ceremony in the East Room of the White House. He called the United States “a nation founded on the principle that all human life is sacred.”

How does Bush reconcile his thinking with regards to IVF? Several eggs are inseminated to increase the chances of pregnancy, one is chosen and the rest are discarded. Should IVF be banned as an unethical waste of human life?

Human life is not being destroyed here, since the human life is non-existent until it's allowed to grow inside the mother. This collection of stem cells are not assigned to any particular function, they're a blank slate and that's what makes them special. Yes it is theoretically possible for these cells to turn into human life, but at this point they're codeless and that's what is so important about them. These discarded cells could be used to cure diseases that are presently a death sentence.

The lives that are being wasted are those that could potentially be saved by research in this field, but instead are being lost because of an irrational belief in stem cells being "sacred." This can be directly attributed to an irrational belief in a deity, meanwhile real people are really suffering. These codeless collections of cells are currently being wasted when they could be used to save lives.

People need to stand up for the advancement of reason and for scientific research that could potentially save the lives of millions of people.

[scribblet]

I don't get it either, but to a lot of people its destroying life, the same concept I suppose as being against birth control. Go figure.

However, under the previous admin. there was no federal funding at all for human embryonic stem cell research. At least the current Administration has made Federal funds available for some stem cell research.

[cybercoma]

I don't get it either, but to a lot of people its destroying life, the same concept I suppose as being against birth control. Go figure.

However, under the previous admin. there was no federal funding at all for human embryonic stem cell research. At least the current Administration has made Federal funds available for some stem cell research.

The article indicates that Bush was paying lip-service to other less-effective forms of stem cell research, since funding for them has not been made available by the Federal Government. I might be wrong... but I think that's more or less what it said.

[bush_cheney2004]

....People need to stand up for the advancement of reason and for scientific research that could potentially save the lives of millions of people.

Ummm...OK...let's follow Canada's lead and strong commitment to stem cell research...a whopping $5.3 million!

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/03/31/...ells050331.html

[cybercoma]

....People need to stand up for the advancement of reason and for scientific research that could potentially save the lives of millions of people.

Ummm...OK...let's follow Canada's lead and strong commitment to stem cell research...a whopping $5.3 million!

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/03/31/...ells050331.html

Pitiful example, I agree. I never once suggested Canada was the example that should be followed.

[sharkman]

They don't need stem cells anymore. They have found that the umbilical cord has excellent potential. Good for Bushie.

[BC_chick]

However, under the previous admin. there was no federal funding at all for human embryonic stem cell research. At least the current Administration has made Federal funds available for some stem cell research.

Bush is actually quite smart in this way (or should I say Rove has trained him well how to talk out both sides of his mouth) but he talks like an ultra-Christian-right fascist to the point where his poor religious supporters believe him on every promise, yet his actions are completely different than what he says.

Think about it - after a republican congress, judiciary and executive, he didn't amend the constitution against gay-marriage and he didn't ban abortion despite all his hoopla to the contrary.

I guess this stem-cell research veto is to just finally throw a bone to the last remaining 20 something percent of people who still support him for his bark.

[Mad_Michael]

Bush is actually quite smart in this way (or should I say Rove has trained him well how to talk out both sides of his mouth) but he talks like an ultra-Christian-right fascist to the point where his poor religious supporters believe him on every promise, yet his actions are completely different than what he says.

Think about it - after a republican congress, judiciary and executive, he didn't amend the constitution against gay-marriage and he didn't ban abortion despite all his hoopla to the contrary.

I guess this stem-cell research veto is to just finally throw a bone to the last remaining 20 something percent of people who still support him for his bark.

Bush couldn't pass his DMA nor could he pass a ban on abortion. Despite Republican control of Congress, at no time did they actually have sufficient legislative majority on either issue. Indeed, the DMA requires ratification by 2/3 of the State Legislatures and that's just not possible.

Btw, Bush is only preventing Federal funding of stem-cell research in USA. Private funding of stem-cell research is entirely legal - which proves that Bush is just posturing on this issue, not actually taking a principled stand since stem-ccell research is not banned.

[sharkman]

Bush is actually quite smart in this way (or should I say Rove has trained him well how to talk out both sides of his mouth) but he talks like an ultra-Christian-right fascist to the point where his poor religious supporters believe him on every promise, yet his actions are completely different than what he says.

Think about it - after a republican congress, judiciary and executive, he didn't amend the constitution against gay-marriage and he didn't ban abortion despite all his hoopla to the contrary.

I guess this stem-cell research veto is to just finally throw a bone to the last remaining 20 something percent of people who still support him for his bark.

Uh, banning abortion would be shot down in short order by the Supreme Court, nice try at smearing though.

[Mad_Michael]

Uh, banning abortion would be shot down in short order by the Supreme Court, nice try at smearing though.

I wouldn't be so sure about this. The present SCOTUS could do it if you put the right case on the docket. The reason that hasn't happened yet is because the Republicans haven't put it there. They are the ones ultimately who would suffer from the striking down of Roe vs Wade. The political standoff is much more electorally beneficial to both parties.

[sharkman]

Just to be clear, we are talking about the BANNING of abortions. Not restrictions, not just partial birth abortions. All abortions. And if you think Scotus would do that if the right case came along, you are mistaken. It's been the law of the land for almost 40 years and to just ban it is too far removed from any legal precedents. Maybe after 10 years of adding restrictions would it be banned, but not just like that.

[bush_cheney2004]

Indeed, the DMA requires ratification by 2/3 of the State Legislatures and that's just not possible.

Almost right...because it actually take 3/4ths of the State Legislatures to ratify an amendment to the US Constitution, after a 2/3rds vote in House/Senate. The president plays no active role in such a process. Other methods may be used:

- Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)

- Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)

- Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)

- Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

[Mad_Michael]

Just to be clear, we are talking about the BANNING of abortions. Not restrictions, not just partial birth abortions. All abortions. And if you think Scotus would do that if the right case came along, you are mistaken. It's been the law of the land for almost 40 years and to just ban it is too far removed from any legal precedents. Maybe after 10 years of adding restrictions would it be banned, but not just like that.

The Roe descision was 'good politics' and 'bad law'. It is upheld by politics, not law. It stands on no substantive legal ground - it was made up 'whole cloth' - probably the single greatest pieces of judicial activism ever created in the USA.

Roe stands because no one has the political guts to strike it down. It has no substantive support from the Constitution or written law. It just stands out there like SCOTUS's decision on Bush vs Gore. A totally unjustifiable prescendent set without any prescedent or substantive justification in law.

And Alitio, Thomas, Roberts and Scalia would certainly decide against it if it came up.