President Finds His Veto Pen (embryo stem cell research)

[Lunatic Fringe]

WASHINGTON (AP) President Bush has issued the first veto of his presidency, rejecting a bill to expand federal research on stem cells obtained from embryos.

[meandog]

What did you call our President? Are you "meandog" at DU too? I'm not going to give you a pass on your remarks because you are a man and cannot possibly understand (here's where we see God's wisdom)

For your information, I never made it past two posts in my one attempt to get into a discussion over at the DUmp...and, IMHO, God would probably welcome the use of the brain HE gave MAN to research discarded cell TISSUE that would have otherwise been tossed into trash.

[Lunatic Fringe]

There are almost no companies that will invest in a project that will not produce a positive cash flow within a set number of years. The longer the time period for returns, the riskier the project.

Asking private companies to risk billions of dollars for half a century is unreasonable. That is what government research is all about, assuming the risk that private companies are not willing to take.

[dirtboy]

That's because adult stem cells have been researched since the 1950s! We are just NOW starting to see benefits. Embryonic stem cells have only been researched for about 8 years.

So in other words, it took the cultural dehumanization of Roe v. Wade and other such actions to get to the point where we are willing to destroy human embryos to achieve medical advances. I think we can do just fine working with other stem cells without plunging into the moral abyss of killing embryos for new treatments.

I thought the post about moon rocks was self-explanatory, but I guess some people need to be spoon-fed.

You only think such of your opponents. We are quite aware of your rationalization. NASA did not set out to deliberately kill human lives to reach the moon.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Again, this veto is really meaningless if the goal is to prevent such research. It has no effect on it at all.

I don't know that that is the [only] goal of the veto. Regardless of Bush's motivation, there is no good reason the downtrodden taxpayer should be soaked for another pie-in-the-sky liberal fantasy. The libs are apoplectic over this veto because they know the private sector is not going to indiscriminately pump untold sums into ESC. The notion that the reason private money won't do this because it is such a poor risk, is beyond the capability of libs to understand. In their "Looking Glass" land, they believe it is because the private sector is evil and heartless.

[Ingtar]

And actually, this is a moot argument. The first cells become the placenta and umbilical cord. What is harvested for this research are the base cells that make up the person. If you cut out a cell at the point they would need to, you would be removing the baby's arm or leg or brain.

It comes back to the same discussion that should be in the abortion debate, however. Some people believe that life begins at conception. Some do not. What right to those that do not have to make those that do pay to perform what they see as murder? This same logic used to be used in this country, until Roe v. Wade trumped the states.

[Cobra64]

And you are rude, inconsiderate, and don't comply with FR rules in not including fellow FReeper, Lunatic Fringe in your reply to me.

And suggesting he leave the United States makes you sound like a Hollywood liberal.

[RasterMaster]

Better the Christian right than the godless leftist scum.

[CrawDaddyCA]

Except maybe it is so refreshing to find a President who has a conscience.

But that's not my gripe. My gripe is that after all the questionable legislation that he's signed, he uses his veto pen on this.

Where is his 'conscience' when thousands of American citizens are being murdered by illegal criminals? Where was his 'conscience' when he signed the 'Patriot Act' and CFR into law?

But, as OhioWfan pointed out, I'm going off topic.

Rant over. Cease fire.

[Peach]

That is a true blessing, Christian. What an inspiration to have the courage of their convictions.

[Just A Nobody]

Thanks

[af_vet_rr]

The pendulum will swing back away from this temporary trip into Fundamentalism. And the country will be better off for it.

I don't think that will happen, especially in this day and age.

What has happened is that peoples' attitudes are hardening, along with more avenues of expression being available to people (such as the internet, 24/7 news channels, etc.), and most importantly, people with like beliefs have a much easier time of finding one another ala the internet, and their views are reinforced even more (and hardened even more).

As a result people who are on the extreme sides of any issue can make themselves heard much easier than in the past.

There is still the inevitable "silent majority" (not the best way to phrase it, but gets the point across) that sits in the middle on many things, or doesn't care, and they don't get heard because they aren't very vocal or don't care, and as a result they are marginalized by the MSM until elections, or major issues get them riled up one way or the other.

Even if it did swing back that way, past times were not as good and wholesome as people like to think they were, it just wasn't as visible.

I always find it very amusing when people talk about how civilized things used to be 150 years ago or 200 years ago. If they went back and looked at what people were doing and saying and what-not, their toes would curl - the times have changed, but human nature has been pretty consistent at times.

If anything, our society is quite tame in many ways these days, whether it's politics, adult relations, swearing, marriage, death, whatever.

[1035rep]

"Praise God for this good man"

 

Ditto! 

[Calpernia]

>>>>There are almost no companies that will invest in a project that will not produce a positive cash flow within a set number of years. The longer the time period for returns, the riskier the project.

There are grants set up for stem cell. And Al Gore made the intellectual property rights available for the funding foundations to own the research that they fund.

Companies that agree to the research proposal for funding get to decide if they will have a return on investment. And with all the new patent tricks, it isn't the loss that you are presenting.

[Cobra64]

So...........Cobra................is anyone who supports life a 'Bushbot' in your view? Is anyone who is thanking the Lord for this veto (whether or not one believes other previous bills should have been vetoed), simply a 'Bushbot' to you? Are you really that shallow? Really?

What did I say that would make you respond as you did?

I'm confused.

[eleni121]

I read a few narrow minded brushoffs of the veto previous to your post...and I thought that maybe I had mistakenly arrived at some left wing secularist liberal website.

Your words in support of this brave president brought me back to reality. Thanks.

[Cobra64]

There is no consistency to their actions in that case. Leading me to conclude they endorse spending, if it's on their causes.

I don't think I fall into thae category which I think you are describing. I am happy that he is vetoing this bill both for budget and moral purposes. On the other hand, I also believe that he should have vetoed still other bills for strictly budgetary and stemming socialism (if that's even possible anymore.)

[meandog]

So do you think Bush is more incompetent than Clinton?

It is hard to give a crook like Clinton anything but my anathema...however, lets see:
1. gasoline was around $1/gallon under Clinton
2. We actually won the military campaign in Bosnia with less than 100 American lives lost
3. The NASDAQ was at 3500 and projected to hit 5000; the Dow was soaring.
4. We had a balanced budget and a surplus!...

On the minus side we had Haiti, Somalia, USS Cole, corruption, pardons, Whitewater, Monica, Paula, Juanita, Kathleen, and countless other "embarrassments", and a lackadaisical approach to Islamic terrorism (the ONE place I'd give Bush a good mark). MY POINT: While Clinton isn't worthy so much to scrape the soles of Reagan shoes, Bush is good enough only to shine them!

[eleni121]

This profound veto is not about "fundamentalism"...but about HUMANITY.

It starts at conception. Human beings were not meant to
be exploited for this utilitarian parts.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>Pathetic that this is his 1st veto.

That is a totally unfair remark. This was a legitimate veto on a critical issue associated with the pro-life movement, and the right to life that many of us believe is part of human creation. If you believe as I do, that human life begins at conception, then this was the right decision. A moral highground decision by the Prez.

OTOH. I would have been just as pleased if Bush would have vetoed CFR, the trillion dollar prescription drug program, the transportation bill, the energy bill and the farm bill. And I would be overjoyed if Bush would voice his firm support of HR4437.

[Oliver Optic]

Thank you, dear God, that our President has chosen life and truth.

And thank you, Faith, for posting that.

Fear of God and love of the right is true homeland security.

"Righteousness exalts a nation; But sin is a reproach to any people." (Proverbs 14:34)