1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

George Bush vetoes stem cell bill

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by steveox, Jun 20, 2007.

  1. steveox

    steveox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,501
    Likes Received:
    178
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Way Down South
    WASHINGTON - Pushing back against the Democratic-led Congress, President Bush vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have eased restraints on federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

    This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families, just one more example of how out of touch with reality he and his party have become," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told the Take Back America conference of liberal activists Wednesday.

    To blunt criticism, the White House said Bush is issuing an executive order directing the Health and Human Services Department to promote research into cells that — like human embryonic stem cells — also hold the potential of regenerating into different types of cells that might be used to battle disease.

    "This is, certainly not an attempt to muzzle science," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. "It is an attempt, I think, to respect people's conscience on such an issue."

    If the measure Bush vetoed would have become law, the White House said it would have compelled taxpayers for the first time in our history — to support the deliberate destruction of human embyros. Snow said Bush's executive order will encourage scientists to work with the government to add research on new stem cell lines — that does not involve the creation, harming or destruction of human embryos — to the list of projects eligible for federal funding.

    "The president does not believe it's appropriate to put an end to human life for research purposes," Snow said. "That's a line he will not cross."

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to schedule an override vote, but the date has not been set. Democrats, however, currently do not have enough votes to override Bush's veto.

    Scientists were first able to conduct research with embryonic stem cells in 1998, the NIH says. There were no federal funds for the work until Bush announced on Aug. 9, 2001, that his administration would make the funds available for lines of cells that already were in existence.

    Currently, states and private organizations are permitted to fund embryonic stem cell research, but federal support is limited to cells that existed as of Aug. 9, 2001. The latest bill was aimed at lifting that restriction.

    The science aside, the issue has weighty political and ethical implications.

    Public opinion polls show strong support for the research, and it could return as an issue in the 2008 elections.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070620/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_stem_cells

    THATS THAT LAST STRAW!!! IM VOTING FOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT!!!

    I Had enough with the G.O.P MR LIMBAUGH YOU JUST LOST A FAN!!
     
  2. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Article 1, Section 8; 10th Amendment
     
  3. steveox

    steveox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,501
    Likes Received:
    178
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Way Down South
    Im so Pissed off right now!! I Hope Laura Bush gets cancer or a diease.I hope Bush dad gets an heart or liver diease. I hope Barabra Bush gets breast cancer or his daughter Jenna develops kidney failure and then He will change his mind about stem cell research.Ther reason he veto this cause it hasnt affected him or his family members. Im so sick n tired of his political bull****. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON 08!!!
     
  4. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'll ignore all the terrible things you wished upon our presidents family and get down to the issue here.

    I'll even forget about the moral aspect of embryonic stem cell research for a second.

    State and privately funded embryonic research has yielded nothing. On what basis do you believe that federally funded research will magically uncover cures for cancer or other deadly diseases?

    Lastly, as I said above, Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution does not grant Congress this power and as such, I cannot support it. However, the 10th Amendment does say that any power not given to Congress is reserved to the States and to the People, thus the ability to continue research is allowed.
     
  5. steveox

    steveox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,501
    Likes Received:
    178
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Way Down South
    I Rather my tax dollars go towards something to cure our dieases instead towards lazy bums on welfare who recives money,food stamps,free housing and free medical care instead of working an job an 8 hour shift earning his or her money.
     
  6. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First of all, neither are Constitutional. Secondly, if there was an sort of indication that embryonic stem cell research would cure diseases, then I might be inclined to support it. Until then...
     
  7. steveox

    steveox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,501
    Likes Received:
    178
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Way Down South
    Well Hillary Rodham Clinton will sign it.Cause she cares!
     
  8. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well articulated position. Really good.
     
  9. drippinhun

    drippinhun New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Article 1, Section 8
    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    When the Constitution was written, welfare literally meant health. So combined with the mission statement, also known as the Preamble, it is the duty of Congress to promote and provide for the health of its citizens.

    Amendment 10
    Taking the prior mentioned literal interpretation that I suggest has been grossly overlooked by citing the it is a defined obligation to take care of the health of the people, the 10th Amendment would be moot, as issuring the health is clearly a power conferred by the Constitution.
     
  10. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Even if I make the blind assumption that your translation of the word "welfare" is correct, it still doesn't mean socailized healthcare or stem cell research in today's language. You're interpretation is wrong.

    The Framers weren't literally saying "promote the general welfare" of the citizens -- they were saying they aimed to "promote the general welfare" of "the more perfect Union". So they're essentially saying that the Constitution's purpose is to help maintain the health of the country (i.e economy and national security) not the citizens themselves.

    If they actually believed that it was the government's job to literally take care of its citizens, then they would have done it. But they didn't, which means this wasn't their intent and wasn't their meaning of "promote the general welfare".
     
  11. steveox

    steveox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,501
    Likes Received:
    178
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Way Down South
    Im so sick n tired of Handouts if you want money, Shoes on your feet and food down in your stomach. Then WORK FOR IT!!!!
     
  12. Chip

    Chip New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bush's decision to veto the embyonic stem cell bill was the right thing to do.

    There are no disposable people, no matter how young they are.

    No one is to be sacrificed by another, and no one can sacrifice themselves without their consent.

    Because a unique individual human being begins to live that person's one and only life at the moment of conception, all embryos are people, and they cannot rightly be Hitlerianly sacrificed for scientific purposes.

    Though I oppose Bush on most everything else, he gets this issue right by respecting the foundational right to life of newly conceived people.

    If all of Bush's policies respected the reality of rights, he would be a great president ... instead of being one of the worst we've ever had.
     
  13. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,513
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    63

    That is a strange thing for a guy who plans to vote for hillary because you believe for some reason that if she is president you can sue McDonalds for millions because "they" made you overweight gave you diabetes.
     
  14. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,513
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    63
    While I wouldn't rate Bush among the best presidents, his performance doesn't place him among the worst either but that is beside the point. I agree with you completely that he had an obligation to veto the stem cell legislation. The idea of using tax dollars to fund human experimentation in which we are deliberately killing human beings is beyond repulsive.

    And why would we want to fund such research anyway? The list of diseases that have been successfully treated with adult and cord blood stem cells grows practically every day while the list of successful treatments from human experimentation on unborns still languishes at zero?
     
  15. Chip

    Chip New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes ... and in addition, now that scientists have created stem cells from a rat's tail, the "need" to "harvest" embryonic stem cells has come to a merciful end.
     
Loading...

Share This Page