Senate poised to pass embryonic stem cell bill, draw Bush's first veto

Kansas City Star ^ | Jul. 17, 2006 | NA

[neverdem]

The statement weakened speculation by proponents that Bush, persuaded by new science and strong public support for the legislation, might reverse course and sign it into law -- especially if the Senate mustered the 67 votes required to overturn a veto.

Where's the new science?

[TexasCajun]

We must have more Rino's in the senate than I thought?

[neverdem]

SC ping

[dirtboy]

Where's the new science?

It's from the same folks bringing you proof of global warming. Basically, it's technology that hoovers grant dollars from taxpayers.

[Kenny Bunkport]

Of course, this isn't about stem cell research, but FEDERAL FUNDING of stem cell research.

[Clara Lou]

He should veto it. It's the right thing to do. (right = moral)

[EagleUSA]

Of course, this isn't about stem cell research, but FEDERAL FUNDING of stem cell research.
-----
Most miss that point. The stem cell researchers (very close to junk science) can get thier funding from George Soros --- and they can take the poor dupes to the cleaners as usual, like what they did to Christopher Reeves, et al.

[Bigh4u2]

And, unfortunately, Nancy Reagan.

[GeronL]

no new science. its all 'potential'

adult stem cells are being used successfully in medicine though and get no funding apparently.

O and BTW- I no longer consider the GOP to be "my" party.

[proudmilitarymrs]

Where the hell are all the conservatives?

[The Blitherer]

My favorite Reagan quote, which I dearly hope Pres. Bush will alter to fit this occasion:

"I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers: Go ahead, make my day." —March 13, 1985, in a speech threatening to veto legislation raising taxes."

[cpforlife.org]

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[Kenny Bunkport]

can get thier funding from George Soros

He only speculates in currency, and ruins the economies of nations when he sells-off.

[Van Jenerette]

SUBJECT: Stem Cell Statements should lead to the REAL Question...

"Are we all cowards as we dance around the real issue? We should at least be brave enough to start by asking just one question: What if scientific medical research finds that embryonic stem cells are a cure for any disease or condition known to man and they could be used to prolong and improve human life indefinitely?
			...would this change the argument? or, at this point will the argument really just begin?"
To Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and the great celebrities like the late Chistopher Reeves - Michael J. Fox - Mary Tyler Moore - or any pro-stem cell politicians if they really support the use of human embryonic stem cell they should please follow these instructions: #1) Go to a clinic with your 'better half' and create a fertilized child embryo. #2) Use that particular embryo for your own research and your own cure or to help others. OPTION: If you are past the production point ask one of your children or grandchildren to provide(or be) the raw materials for your miracle cure. Regardless of the political decisions, we can be certain of one thing: those who support and yell the loudest for embryonic stem cell research funding will NOT be the people who will provide their embryonic offspring to the research laboratory.

HUMAN LIFE and RIGHTS		We have to respect and Protect All human life
		To each individual their life is sacred. As a people, to begin to pass judgement or sentence on human life by age, quality, position or potential has the effect of placing a price or a measure on what can only be deemed a gift from our creator. However, there is a paradox of life and rights: Our rights as a people for individual-self-government are based upon the uniqueness of human life with rights granted by 'nature's God,' which in turn are protected by our Constitution. One must follow the other, or else the entire argument of human rights becomes based on man's opinion. Either life with rights is given at the same time that life begins or we have no rights beyond which other men or governments are willing to allow us. If we as a people do not respect the sacred notion of human LIFE how can we expect to have respect for RIGHTS that are dependent upon the concept of human LIFE itself? Any society that diminishes the value of one life from another risks its very existence. thoughts on human stem cells... Nearly every discussion about the stem cell question has centered on the question of the sources of stem cells - adult versus embryonic - and the potential each has with regards to medicine - and of course the argument that some embryonic research had ended in disaster during research. To see the truth, I personnally believe that we should look at the stem cell argument from a totally new perspective. I don't think that any of the questions so far are going to the heart of the matter. Are we all cowards as we dance around the real issue? We should at least be brave enough to start by asking just one question: What if scientific medical research finds that embryonic stem cells are a cure for any disease or condition known to man and they could be used to prolong and improve human life indefinitely? Would this change the argument? Or, at this point would the argument really just begin? Does it matter if embryonic stem cells are proven to be the medical equivalent of the elusive 'fountain of youth?' Most civilized nations and people throughout history have been willing to sacrifice themselves so that the next generation will survive. Are we on the verge of becoming a people who are willing to sacrifice the next generation so that our current generation can continue to survive? I don't think that it matters if we are capable of creating or using one life so that we can save another life. Either we respect all human life or we respect no human life. We cannot have it both ways at the same time. The reason we as a people must have moral judgment and values which are clearly defined is that any action we take can and could be 'justified' from some practical standpoint. Our morality forces us to draw a line that we won't cross. It is only our sense of morality that allows us to be called human and it is only that which separates us from the jungle. Once the line is moved from the moral high ground the very concept of morality becomes prosituted and becomes a matter of group or power opinions. For example, if the Titantic were to sink today, using today's standards of morality and ethics - who would get to climb into the lifeboats first and who would be expected to go down with the ship? I'm not sure that today's society or medical community would stand back and save the women and children... Any people who move from the position of protecting human life from its beginning to its end becomes just another part of the immoral mob - no better with any opinion - no worse without one. Just a mob. In the end, the line that we draw on the argument of individual human life will become the line that is drawn to define individual human rights. ...post thoughts part I As for the argument about the eventual destruction of frozen embryos - the 'they are going to die anyway' logic - history is full of examples of this 'foot-in-the-door' argument. For background, read about the post WWII 'ethical' use of medical information that resulted from Nazi experiments on institutionalized and concentration camp men, women, and children. For starters, read about the following 'respected 'members of the WWII medical community including one who was a fellow of the Rockefeller Foundation: Dr. Julius Hallervorden a distinguished academician, who occupied the Chair of Neuropathology at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institut in Berlin-Buch throughout the war years and following the war was a neuropathologist at the Max Planck Institute in Frankfurt. The following is a post-war quote from Hallervorden during an interview: "I heard that they were going to do that and so I went up to them and told them, 'Look here now, boys, if you are going to kill all those people, at least take the brains out so that the material could be utilized'." He is also is documented to have directed the selection of certain children for extermination and subsequent pathological studies as their brains were suitable for a research project. Dr. Sigmund Rascher a researcher in neurophysiology and originally a Captain in the Luftwaffe Medical Service he wrote of his 'Experiments on Escape from High Altitude' where he had vivisection carried out on his subjects even prior to the heart completely stopping. He also experimented on exposure to hypothermia by the immersion of subjects in ice cold water and took part in a top secret report entitled "Freezing Experiments with Human Beings." Rascher was quite proud of his work with humans. "I am the only one in this whole crowd who really does and knows human physiology because I experiment on humans and not on guinea pigs or mice." Dr. Georg Schaltenbrand a pre-eminent German clinical neuroscientist who had served as a fellow of the Rockefeller Foundation who used humans for multiple sclerosis experiments designed to find a cure for the disease. "If the physician presumes to take into consideration in his work whether a life has value or not, the consequences are boundless and the physician becomes the most dangerous man in the state." - Christopher Hufeland, 18th century German physician

K&V Jenerette... South 'By-God' Carolina - www.jenerette.com

[FreeRep]

Any research done using embryonic stem cells could instead be done using adult stem cells. Embryonic stem-cell research is immoral, it is an assault on innocent human life. It is related to other evils such as euthanasia, infanticide and abortion, it is the "way of Cain", the killing of an innocent human beings. The end does not justify the means.

[doc30]

Where's the new science?

Brownback's comments are the most scientifically ignorant I've ever heard. You have to do the research to have the science. He want's to see results before the work is done before he thinks funding is even remotely justified. And I am one that is against creating embryos for research purposes.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

I saw Specter on tv today praising embryonic stem cell research as if it's going to cure Parkinson's.

[supercat]

He want's to see results before the work is done before he thinks funding is even remotely justified.

Generally, isn't a person seeking research grants supposed to demonstrate that the proposed research is likely to achieve something useful?

If I wanted funding to develop a new battery, my understanding of the procedure would be that I would likely have to fund my research by myself until I at least had something that worked in a way that was somehow at least theoretically better than existing technologies. At that point, I might just have a small prototype which would not be sufficient to prove the worth of my invention, but would be at least suggestive. I would then seek a grant to produce a larger prototype which would allow more meaningful measurements to determine whether my invention was scalable and practical. Then, if the larger prototype did in fact prove the concept sound, I would seek further funds to help improve manufacture and reduce the cost to the point that production was practical.

I am unaware of any evidence from ESCR advocates to suggest that embryonic stem cells will be able to do anything (aside from their natural function, of course) that can't be done just as well and more easily using adult stem cells. Indeed, ESCR advocates consistently avoid comparisons. I wonder why?

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a presidential hopeful whose negotiations made the debate possible, decried restrictions on federal support for stem cell research.

Kiss it good bye, Bill. You, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and Pataki can all duke it out for the long dead Rockefeller wing on the Republican Party.

[Anita1]

Re: "Where the hell are all the conservatives?"

NOT in the Senate - that's for sure!!

We need to clean house (or Senate - I mean!)

They've been charlatans (definition: quacks, frauds, or counterfeits!) for a loooong time.

The House is the only representative group of the conservatives!