Posted on 07/10/2006 1:39:16 PM PDT by Notwithstanding
President Bush will likely cast the first veto of his presidency if the Senate, as expected, passes legislation to expand federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, White House aide Karl Rove said today.
"The president is emphatic about this," Rove said in a meeting with the editorial board of The Denver Post.
The U.S. House of Representatives has already passed the legislation, co-sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Denver, and Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del. If the Senate approves the bill this month it would go to the president's desk.
(Excerpt) Read more at denverpost.com ...
I want no theocracy imposed on you. Knock it off with the extremes here. But just as you do not want our morals pushed on you, the gov't has no right to force me to help fund what I see as murder.
Collateral damage done during bombing runs, is also knowingly killing innocents. Sounds like the taking of lives, to save lives, is relative to the situation.
Some or all...sounds like the killing of innocents is relative.
"Sinkspur was talking about deliberately killing innocents. Comparing that to killing terrorists is ridiculous."
Nice try, buddy, but most of us aren't that gullible around here.
Embarrassingly ridiculous.
But they did when it was adult stem cells. The work you cite as succesful started back in the 1960s with government grants at universities. Only now is it maturing to the point that private companies are willing to look into the ROI.
Asking companies to take on a 40-year project means it will get nowhere. It was the same with the space program, but now we are seeing the economic payoffs of government funded space exploration.
Sometimes government does need to step up and spend money to push innovation.
Embryonic stem cell harvesting kills all innocents.
Those poor little innocent blobs of proteinic goo.
I haven't mentioned terrorists. What I said, was in war there are expected civilian casualties, these are innocents also. In both situations, innocent human lives are being taken, it's just a matter of whether it's acceptable or not.
No, it's relative to the situation. Some taking of lives, is OK, while some isn't. End result is the same, death.
I cannot believe anyone (lunaticfringe) would support FEDERAL funding for something so controversial. Not just because it's wrong but because the evidence is that it CAUSES harm. Good grief! It is already being funded by the private sector. Christopher Reeve died from a tumor caused by this "treatment", not from his actual injuries.
DUH!!!
Thanks. I calls 'em as I sees 'em, and Bush has been quite solid on pro-life matters.
But as my final post to you, let me make a comparison.....
I worship the Creator - you worship the creation
The gods you worship are fallable, mortal, sinful, short-sighted and error-prone,depending on guesswork and supposition
The God I worship is Infallable, Eternal, Holy, Just, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and most importantly for this discussion Omniscient.
Without the God that I worship, your gods would not exist...........nor would you.
Without the God of Scripture, there would be no science.
Without the God of Scripture, you would not have the mind with which to deny him.
We both have a religion, Lunatic. But my God is eternal, and yours will turn to dust.
It's your God-given choice to worship what you will, but it's unwise of you to mock those who don't share your faith in what will surely fail.
Point well taken.
Yes, he has. He's been consisently pro-life, and I am thankful.
"But just as you do not want our morals pushed on you, the gov't has no right to force me to help fund what I see as murder."
I remember that argument from the '60s anti-war crowd.
I think the real question here is not if it's ok to use embryos, which are going to be destroyed anyway, for research purposes. My question is why are we allowing the embryos to be destroyed simply because the "parents" decide they don't have any more use for them? Frankly, I find that far more disgusting. I know that this is a little off the subject of government funding, but in many ways I see it as the root of the problem.
Name one human life that has been saved with embryonic stem cells. One. Name a single cure that has been developed using embryonic stem cells. In fact, none have despite loads of attempts.
Here's a few things that Ann Coulter has to say about it in her latest book:
Although therehas been researcho n both adult stem cells an embryonic stem cells since the fities, only adult stem-cell research has produced any cures - and lots of 'em. Adult stem cells ahve been used for decades to treat dozens of diseases, including Type 1 diabetes, liver disease, and spinal cord injuries. Currently, adult stem cells are used to treat more than eighty different diseases.[She goes on to list a number of successful cures and treatments using adult stem cells.]
By conrast, the embryonic stem-cell researchers have produced nothing. They have treated nothing. They have not even begun one human clinical trial. They've successfully treatd a few rodents, but they keep running into two probles: First, the cells tend to be rejected by the immune system. Second, they tend to cause malignancies called teratomas - meaning "monster tumors."
The idea that embryonic stem cells are on the verge of curing anything is absurd. It's possible embryonic stem-cell research could find a cure fo Alzheimer's disease someday only in the sense that it is possible that biologist's toenail clippings could be used to find a cure for Alzheimer's someday. Liberals aren't demanding that taxpayer money be used for research on toenail clippings: that would not advance their governing principle, which is to always kill human life (unless the human life being killed is likely to fly a plan into American skyscrapers, in which case, it is wrong to kill it).
The only advantage embryonic stem cells once had over adult stem cells was their ability to transform into any type of cell. But fast-advancing research on adult stem cells has stripped away even that theoretical advantage. As of 2002, adult stem cells were being converted in to all thre types of cells the body produces during early embryonic development. And adult stem cells were already curing people!
[Snip]
...the Times ran a front-page story describing the results of those experiments on Parkinson's patients: Not only was there no positive effect from injecting fetal brain tissue into the recipients, but about 15 percent of the patients had nightmarish side effects. The unfortunate patients "writhe and twist, jerk their heads, fling their arms about." In the words of one scientist, "They chew constantly, their fingers go up and down, their wrists flex and distend." And the worst thing was, the scientists couldn't turn it off.
What obvious??? You are making no points in the argument other than 'I'm a Christian, and that's all that matters.' Seems to me the only one BLINDED by a religion is you. Your whole argument is based on your non-existent God.
Coulter is a liar, since the embryonic stem cell wasn't even isolated until 1998. Since the premise of her argument is a lie, there is no point in shredding the rest of her diatribe.
I'm not arguing for embryonic stem cell research. I tend to agree that adult stem cells are the way to go, but Ann Coulter?????? Sorry, I've seen her get her facts tied up in knots too many times to take much of what she says seriously. Besides, she'd say anything for a buck.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.