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 ...
It is a political attack on conservatives..........specifically the President..........by those who don't value human life.
And the Republicans who support it are the spineless ones who are afraid to be characterized in the media as anti-science or religious wingnuts.
(Just look at the attacks here from so-called conservatives on those of us who value human life).
Marking this post.
Thanks, jwalsh07.
"Nobody's life is ending at taxpayers' expense."
Please look up the definition of embryo (as in, from the word embryonic).
"This bill is for funding to destroy more human embryos and create another profit-making enterprise for the abortion industry and its allies at taxpayer expense...and the only thing this option seems to be successful at is the creation of cancer tissue."
Well, actually it does a pretty good job of lining pockets also.
"We can farm embryos to cultivate stem cells for our own purposes."
What does it take to "farm embryos"?
"Arguing that ASC research will provide all the same "benefits" of ESC research is not a good approach, as no one knows the possible results of ESC research at this early stage. Arguing that ESC research is futile and using lack of private funding I think is the worst argument, considering that private funding hardly will ever be provided for something without short-to-medium range return."
Here is the dirty little secret. There have been adult stem cells that have been found more recently than human embryonic stem cells, and these adult stem cells already have more proof to cure than what the embryonic stem cells have proven, even though embryonic stem cells have been funded, around the world, to a much larger extent than the new adult stem cells.
"Exactly how many companies do you know of which are willing to do research which may lead to a product in 30 to 40 years?"
Just about every major pharmaceudical company that exists.
Do you really think the drugs that are coming out today had research started in the last 10 to 20 years?
"And even if it was a "frozen" embryo at one point, it is not a human being until it reaches the fetal stage of pregnancy."
So, what exactly were you before you reached the fetal stage of pregnancy?
"'Life' is merely a chemical reaction in the right place at the right time."
Then why is it that science can not create "life"? Science knows a lot about chemical reactions, but can not create this simple chemical reaction no matter how many times they try.
Amen to that.
BUSH WAVES HIS VETO PENKarl Rove is predicting that President Bush, who has not vetoed a single piece of legislation in his 5 1/2 years as president, will finally veto a bill. And just what bill has he chosen to make a stand on? A bill expanding the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Oh boy. This is one of those abortion-type issues that gets people worked up on both sides. But really, that's not the story here.
The media, as they have in the past, will spin this as George W. Bush banning embryonic stem cell research, which is a fallacy. Embryonic stem cell research is perfectly legal, just as its always been. What Bush is objecting to is the federal funding of it. In fact, no administration has funded more stem cell research than the Bush Administration.
So expect the media to report that the president has vetoed stem cell research, in an attempt to have it banned. And here's an other question for proponents of the research. If embryonic stem cell research truly holds the promise they say it does, then why aren't the pharmaceutical companies tripping all over themselves to get a piece of the action? After all, whoever finds the cure to any disease first will reap billions.
Oh, and one more thing. It doesn't seem to say anything in the U.S. Constitution about funding medical research. Perhaps I'm missing something there, but I can't find it.
-- Neal Boortz, HERE
"Where you and I disagree is what is human life. I do not believe an embryo, which is simply 2-8 cells of proteins and DNA, is a human "life". It is simply the result of a chemical reaction between a sperm and an egg, also called a zygote. A zygote BECOMES a human life after 8 weeks when it forms into a fetus."
I have had 2 to 8 cells before. Some became grass. Some became my dogs. The difference is how those 2 to 8 cells came together. 2 human cells do not become birds, or trees, the become humans.
2 cells from cats do not become air, they become kittens.
This is not religion, it is the science that you have been speaking of as if you had thought about it. Obviously, you have not really thought about it.
"Collateral damage done during bombing runs, is also knowingly killing innocents."
No it is not. You make a presumption that the planning, organizing and implementing of bombing runs knows that there will be collateral damage, and does not attempt to prevent it. Prove that the knowledge was there before hand.
"In both situations, innocent human lives are being taken, it's just a matter of whether it's acceptable or not."
No, it is a matter of whether it is known, and can be prevented or not.
"there is NO reason to use embryos for this research."
What I am a little surprised at is that some here seem to believe that there is something good about embryonic stem cell research, in spite of the evidence. They claim that only those opposed to it, are religious, but they are the ones that ignore the studies. I find them to be the religious ones.
The facts support those who oppose embryonic stem cell research, yet I have seen multiple times where you have been referred to as an extreme religious person.
They are the ones that are ignoring science, not you and not I.
I guess we are "wrong" in their minds because we have a faith, but in truth, our faith is not the main objective that we are showing, we are showing the facts.
Facts are, still, sticky things. And facts still mean things.
You know that is impossible, and anything I may present, you will just say ...prove it...so this is over.
The scientific facts don't support the continued use of embryos for research, yet those of us who know that are attacked on religious grounds.
For me it makes it obvious that the problems with those people are not political or intellectual, but spiritual. They resent people of faith and besmirch anything we say on that basis, whether it squares with the facts or not.
In this particular case, the facts don't support continued embryonic research, and the President is right from every angle by refusing to support that research with our tax dollars.
There is no parallel between collateral damage in a war, with every possible effort made to avoid it, and deliberate destruction of human life.
Tell that to the citizens of Dresden and any other city that has been bombed from 25000 ft.
Interesting, albeit slightly dishonest, debating technique.
I repeat. Referring to current standards of US warfare (as I'm sure everyone else in the discussion was), there is NO parallel between accidental collateral damage in war when every effort is made to prevent it, and the deliberate snuffing out of innocent life by (unnecessary) 'research.'
You still lost the argument..........even with your shady debating style.
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.