Full Version: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill
Once again, Bush has vetoed a stem cell research bill. I’m sure this comes as no surprise to anyone. But, a couple of curious statements Bush made make me wonder about just how sacred life is to him.
Even if I agreed that an embryonic cell was a “human life”, I’d have to ask how can Bush reconcile that statement (bolded) with what he has done in Iraq? He has destroyed nearly 4,000 American lives and innumerable Iraqi lives to “save” the Iraqis.
People on both sides of the political aisle recognize the value of stem cell research and support it. Unfortunately, one of the dogmatic politicians who do not happens to hold the power of veto. There is some talk among Republicans and Democrats of overturning the veto.
If it is against conscience to use a cell for life-saving purposes, how is it conscionable to use human lives for life-taking purposes?
Is it possible that Bush’s veto of the stem cell bill will be overturned?
QUOTE
"America is also a nation founded on the principle that all human life is sacred. And our conscience calls us to pursue the possibilities of science in a manner that respects human dignity and upholds our moral values." Register
QUOTE
"Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical -- and it is not the only option before us," Bush said in remarks in the White House's ornate East Room following the veto. "Researchers are now developing promising new techniques that offer the potential to produce pluripotent stem cells without having to destroy human life." Chicago Trib
Even if I agreed that an embryonic cell was a “human life”, I’d have to ask how can Bush reconcile that statement (bolded) with what he has done in Iraq? He has destroyed nearly 4,000 American lives and innumerable Iraqi lives to “save” the Iraqis.
People on both sides of the political aisle recognize the value of stem cell research and support it. Unfortunately, one of the dogmatic politicians who do not happens to hold the power of veto. There is some talk among Republicans and Democrats of overturning the veto.
QUOTE
Many Republicans also support the bill the president vetoed. At a separate news conference, DeGette's co-sponsor, Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., said Republican supporters will join in the effort to overturn the veto. CBS
If it is against conscience to use a cell for life-saving purposes, how is it conscionable to use human lives for life-taking purposes?
Is it possible that Bush’s veto of the stem cell bill will be overturned?
I find your quaint naievete to be quite refreshing. It seems to me, that you are shocked, perhaps even affronted at the inherent hypocrisy of our president.
Why does this come as a surprise to you? Politics, government, economics, all the fine principles that uphold this society, require a moderate, and at times, tremendous, amount of hypocrisy.
From what I can glean from your question, you are questioning the cause, and the righteousness of our war. That fact of the matter is, there was never a cause. We invaded a foreign country, or, as some would like to say, liberated it, with the hopes that we would be able to glean massive profits from the pillaging of their local resources. We failed, miserably. (In my opinion, President Bush should not only be lambasted for invading Iraq for its oil, but also failing in the attempt).
Now, how is this any different? Simple. He has voters. He needs to please them. The simplest way to do that is to appeal to the conservative bloc, a bloc that more often than not, bases the majority of its arguments out of sheer ignorance. So long as the pretty embryos are safe, those faithful churchgoers, (the majority of which have never entered a biomedical lab) can rest easy.
Now, have these people seen victims of Parkinson’s? Have they ever had to suffer as these people have suffered? Probably not. But, what they do have is a vast, mind-numbing amount of money, and the stubborn stupidity to push forward with it, even off the edge of a moral cliff.
As for war, well, I’ll tell you right now, its necessary. America makes its money by killing people. As soon as America realizes that it can make money by “killing” (although that word, in my belief, is inapplicable) embryos, it will progress, with all speed.
Bide your time. The great thing about idiots, is that they generally die out, all by themselves.
Why does this come as a surprise to you? Politics, government, economics, all the fine principles that uphold this society, require a moderate, and at times, tremendous, amount of hypocrisy.
From what I can glean from your question, you are questioning the cause, and the righteousness of our war. That fact of the matter is, there was never a cause. We invaded a foreign country, or, as some would like to say, liberated it, with the hopes that we would be able to glean massive profits from the pillaging of their local resources. We failed, miserably. (In my opinion, President Bush should not only be lambasted for invading Iraq for its oil, but also failing in the attempt).
Now, how is this any different? Simple. He has voters. He needs to please them. The simplest way to do that is to appeal to the conservative bloc, a bloc that more often than not, bases the majority of its arguments out of sheer ignorance. So long as the pretty embryos are safe, those faithful churchgoers, (the majority of which have never entered a biomedical lab) can rest easy.
Now, have these people seen victims of Parkinson’s? Have they ever had to suffer as these people have suffered? Probably not. But, what they do have is a vast, mind-numbing amount of money, and the stubborn stupidity to push forward with it, even off the edge of a moral cliff.
As for war, well, I’ll tell you right now, its necessary. America makes its money by killing people. As soon as America realizes that it can make money by “killing” (although that word, in my belief, is inapplicable) embryos, it will progress, with all speed.
Bide your time. The great thing about idiots, is that they generally die out, all by themselves.
QUOTE(akalae @ Jun 21 2007, 02:47 PM) 
I find your quaint naievete to be quite refreshing. It seems to me, that you are shocked, perhaps even affronted at the inherent hypocrisy of our president.
Why does this come as a surprise to you? Politics, government, economics, all the fine principles that uphold this society, require a moderate, and at times, tremendous, amount of hypocrisy.
From what I can glean from your question, you are questioning the cause, and the righteousness of our war. That fact of the matter is, there was never a cause. We invaded a foreign country, or, as some would like to say, liberated it, with the hopes that we would be able to glean massive profits from the pillaging of their local resources. We failed, miserably. (In my opinion, President Bush should not only be lambasted for invading Iraq for its oil, but also failing in the attempt).
Now, how is this any different? Simple. He has voters. He needs to please them. The simplest way to do that is to appeal to the conservative bloc, a bloc that more often than not, bases the majority of its arguments out of sheer ignorance. So long as the pretty embryos are safe, those faithful churchgoers, (the majority of which have never entered a biomedical lab) can rest easy.
Now, have these people seen victims of Parkinson’s? Have they ever had to suffer as these people have suffered? Probably not. But, what they do have is a vast, mind-numbing amount of money, and the stubborn stupidity to push forward with it, even off the edge of a moral cliff.
As for war, well, I’ll tell you right now, its necessary. America makes its money by killing people. As soon as America realizes that it can make money by “killing” (although that word, in my belief, is inapplicable) embryos, it will progress, with all speed.
Bide your time. The great thing about idiots, is that they generally die out, all by themselves.
Why does this come as a surprise to you? Politics, government, economics, all the fine principles that uphold this society, require a moderate, and at times, tremendous, amount of hypocrisy.
From what I can glean from your question, you are questioning the cause, and the righteousness of our war. That fact of the matter is, there was never a cause. We invaded a foreign country, or, as some would like to say, liberated it, with the hopes that we would be able to glean massive profits from the pillaging of their local resources. We failed, miserably. (In my opinion, President Bush should not only be lambasted for invading Iraq for its oil, but also failing in the attempt).
Now, how is this any different? Simple. He has voters. He needs to please them. The simplest way to do that is to appeal to the conservative bloc, a bloc that more often than not, bases the majority of its arguments out of sheer ignorance. So long as the pretty embryos are safe, those faithful churchgoers, (the majority of which have never entered a biomedical lab) can rest easy.
Now, have these people seen victims of Parkinson’s? Have they ever had to suffer as these people have suffered? Probably not. But, what they do have is a vast, mind-numbing amount of money, and the stubborn stupidity to push forward with it, even off the edge of a moral cliff.
As for war, well, I’ll tell you right now, its necessary. America makes its money by killing people. As soon as America realizes that it can make money by “killing” (although that word, in my belief, is inapplicable) embryos, it will progress, with all speed.
Bide your time. The great thing about idiots, is that they generally die out, all by themselves.
Don't hold back. I encourage you to get in touch with your true feelings on this subject. Holding it all in like you do could give you a stomach disorder. And who knows, maybe the magic embryos will fix that too. As we all know they'll stop Global Warming and the ongoing chicken finger menace.
Damned Conservative Bloc all rich and stupid down to the last of them...
Oh and BTW I think Bush is wrong to block Government funding to this but it is what it is. There's nothing stopping private funding though...
2) I do not think the votes are there to overturn Bush's veto. Further I don't think the will is there.
QUOTE(akalae)
I find your quaint naievete to be quite refreshing. It seems to me, that you are shocked, perhaps even affronted at the inherent hypocrisy of our president.
Why does this come as a surprise to you? Politics, government, economics, all the fine principles that uphold this society, require a moderate, and at times, tremendous, amount of hypocrisy.
Why does this come as a surprise to you? Politics, government, economics, all the fine principles that uphold this society, require a moderate, and at times, tremendous, amount of hypocrisy.
My, you must be new here. Trust me, it is hardly a surprise to me. What interests me is the language he is using to justify his position. I've always been fascinated how conservatives can revere "life"...as long as it is in a freezer or in the womb, but they don't seem to give a squat if it's actually a living, breathing human being already born.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jun 21 2007, 01:03 PM)
Is it possible that Bush’s veto of the stem cell bill will be overturned?[/b]
Not that it will do any good, but I just called Rep. Kay Granger's ®. I got her answering machine and requested that she vote to overturn the village-idiot-in-chief's stem-cell veto. I am also going to call my? two Senators, Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn. Hutchinson has been favorable to embryonic stem-cell, but Cornyn, is as we say down here in Texas, "useless as tits on a bore hog."
If it is against conscience to use a cell for life-saving purposes, how is it conscionable to use human lives for life-taking purposes?
Don’t see a connection of any kind. No one has ever said “war” was wrong in any way including every religios organization in the country.
Nice try.
Is it possible that Bush’s veto of the stem cell bill will be overturned.
I hope so it needs to be. In any case by the time he is out alternative methods of gathering stem cell may be common and the need will not be there.
DGRL
Conservatives???/ Was FDR a Conservative? How about LBJ – did here “revere” the lives of the 100s of thousands of Vietnamese he killed? Try logic here.
Don’t see a connection of any kind. No one has ever said “war” was wrong in any way including every religios organization in the country.
Nice try.
Is it possible that Bush’s veto of the stem cell bill will be overturned.
I hope so it needs to be. In any case by the time he is out alternative methods of gathering stem cell may be common and the need will not be there.
DGRL
QUOTE
fascinated how conservatives can revere "life"...as long as it is in a freezer or in the womb, but they don't seem to give a squat if it's actually a living, breathing human being already born.
Conservatives???/ Was FDR a Conservative? How about LBJ – did here “revere” the lives of the 100s of thousands of Vietnamese he killed? Try logic here.
QUOTE(Ted)
Conservatives???/ Was FDR a Conservative? How about LBJ – did here “revere” the lives of the 100s of thousands of Vietnamese he killed? Try logic here.
Try focusing on the topic here, Ted. FDR and LBJ never made the inane comments I started this topic with. 60+ (or even 40) years ago, abortion and stem cells were hardly hot topics during presidential elections. And LBJ was a mean, nasty SOB just like the current mean, nasty SOB, regardless of what party he belonged to. I'm talking about conservatives TODAY, who have made anti-choice their party's platform. In fact, I think it officially began with St. Ronnie's reign back in 1980.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jun 21 2007, 05:08 PM)
QUOTE(Ted)
Conservatives???/ Was FDR a Conservative? How about LBJ – did here “revere” the lives of the 100s of thousands of Vietnamese he killed? Try logic here.
Try focusing on the topic here, Ted. FDR and LBJ never made the inane comments I started this topic with. 60+ (or even 40) years ago, abortion and stem cells were hardly hot topics during presidential elections. And LBJ was a mean, nasty SOB just like the current mean, nasty SOB, regardless of what party he belonged to. I'm talking about conservatives TODAY, who have made anti-choice their party's platform. In fact, I think it officially began with St. Ronnie's reign back in 1980.
Since I am a conservative (and favor stem cell research) I take offence to your broad condemnation of all of us and further you connection of this to a war you don’t like (run by a conservative) is a crappy analogy since as I pointed out plenty of non conservatives have sent one hell of a lot more men to die than GWB has or will.
Interestingly, 60% of infertility patients are willing to donate their unused embryos for stem cell research, according to Newsweek. And it would seem that decision reflects the feeling of the country (60% of Americans support stem cell research). Too bad our president doesn't care what the citizens of this country think.
You truly have a way of twisting people's words into pretzels (not to mention logic). I never "condemned" you or conservatives in general. It is a FACT that anti-choice (OK, "pro-life" if you must) is a part of the Republican party platform. Prove to me it is not, or just sit there and be offended; it really doesn't matter to me.
QUOTE(Ted)
Since I am a conservative (and favor stem cell research) I take offence to your broad condemnation of all of us and further you connection of this to a war you don’t like (run by a conservative) is a crappy analogy since as I pointed out plenty of non conservatives have sent one hell of a lot more men to die than GWB has or will.
You truly have a way of twisting people's words into pretzels (not to mention logic). I never "condemned" you or conservatives in general. It is a FACT that anti-choice (OK, "pro-life" if you must) is a part of the Republican party platform. Prove to me it is not, or just sit there and be offended; it really doesn't matter to me.
If it is against conscience to use a cell for life-saving purposes, how is it conscionable to use human lives for life-taking purposes?
Is it possible that Bush’s veto of the stem cell bill will be overturned?
Also, the hypocrisy of Bush talking about the sanctity of life and turning his back on Darfur and STILL fighting in Iraq...against one group of Iraqis.
The veto will not be overturned. The religious right, although dwindling in number, still scare enough republicans.
Bush and republicans will, however, be defeated in 2008
Is it possible that Bush’s veto of the stem cell bill will be overturned?
Also, the hypocrisy of Bush talking about the sanctity of life and turning his back on Darfur and STILL fighting in Iraq...against one group of Iraqis.
The veto will not be overturned. The religious right, although dwindling in number, still scare enough republicans.
Bush and republicans will, however, be defeated in 2008
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jun 21 2007, 11:01 PM)
Interestingly, 60% of infertility patients are willing to donate their unused embryos for stem cell research, according to Newsweek. And it would seem that decision reflects the feeling of the country (60% of Americans support stem cell research). Too bad our president doesn't care what the citizens of this country think.
You truly have a way of twisting people's words into pretzels (not to mention logic). I never "condemned" you or conservatives in general. It is a FACT that anti-choice (OK, "pro-life" if you must) is a part of the Republican party platform. Prove to me it is not, or just sit there and be offended; it really doesn't matter to me.
QUOTE(Ted)
Since I am a conservative (and favor stem cell research) I take offence to your broad condemnation of all of us and further you connection of this to a war you don’t like (run by a conservative) is a crappy analogy since as I pointed out plenty of non conservatives have sent one hell of a lot more men to die than GWB has or will.
You truly have a way of twisting people's words into pretzels (not to mention logic). I never "condemned" you or conservatives in general. It is a FACT that anti-choice (OK, "pro-life" if you must) is a part of the Republican party platform. Prove to me it is not, or just sit there and be offended; it really doesn't matter to me.
Hey DG,
I am neither Anti-Choice, nor am I against stem cell research.
As far as the choice issue goes I am all for choice, but once a choice is made people have to deal with their choices. ( let that one sink in for a moment)
NOTHING stops private funding of stem cells ... and if the promise of embryonic stem cells is so great you can bet private companies are doing it.
What i find sickening about your side is that they will jump through their own rectums to save the life of a mass murderer (death penalty) but will slaughter the innocent with glee...
If it is against conscience to use a cell for life-saving purposes, how is it conscionable to use human lives for life-taking purposes?
Here we go again.
Let's see if I have this correct - if the use of a human life involves the loss of another human then how can it be anything but pure hypocrisy (D-Girl's implication) to want to preserve the eventual life of an embryonic stem cell? That is your claim? 
D-Girl - you have a satisfactory topic about embryonic stem cells. The problem is that you lack any ability to see nuance at all when considering different contexts. Are you actually suggesting that wanting to protect what will inevitably become human life precludes me from believing war is sometimes necessary to defend the greater good? It's funny how many of the adjectives used to brand conservatives (i.e., narrow-minded, quick to jump to conclusions, and the like) fit so nicely for many on the left!
I walk that tight-rope of wanting to protect embryonic stem cells from what I fear would become victims of the seedy under belly of capitalism at the same time supporting the need for war as a last resort. Do you support unfettered propogation of stem cell farms under the umbrella of "what happens in my body is my business"? You are aware the US is not the only country struggling with the ethical issues of such an enterprise?
Is it possible that Bush’s veto of the stem cell bill will be overturned?
It is possible. I hope it is not overturned (and I liked Superman and Family Ties!). If it is, I will survive this as I have similarly countenanced the abortion epidemic of the last several decades.
Here we go again.
Let's see if I have this correct - if the use of a human life involves the loss of another human then how can it be anything but pure hypocrisy (D-Girl's implication) to want to preserve the eventual life of an embryonic stem cell? That is your claim? D-Girl - you have a satisfactory topic about embryonic stem cells. The problem is that you lack any ability to see nuance at all when considering different contexts. Are you actually suggesting that wanting to protect what will inevitably become human life precludes me from believing war is sometimes necessary to defend the greater good? It's funny how many of the adjectives used to brand conservatives (i.e., narrow-minded, quick to jump to conclusions, and the like) fit so nicely for many on the left!
I walk that tight-rope of wanting to protect embryonic stem cells from what I fear would become victims of the seedy under belly of capitalism at the same time supporting the need for war as a last resort. Do you support unfettered propogation of stem cell farms under the umbrella of "what happens in my body is my business"? You are aware the US is not the only country struggling with the ethical issues of such an enterprise?
Is it possible that Bush’s veto of the stem cell bill will be overturned?
It is possible. I hope it is not overturned (and I liked Superman and Family Ties!). If it is, I will survive this as I have similarly countenanced the abortion epidemic of the last several decades.
If it is against conscience to use a cell for life-saving purposes, how is it conscionable to use human lives for life-taking purposes?
Bush stuck his foot in the presidential pie-hole with this statement yesterday.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20070620-8.html
QUOTE(Ashton Wooldridge @ Jun 21 2007, 07:43 PM)
Also, the hypocrisy of Bush talking about the sanctity of life and turning his back on Darfur and STILL fighting in Iraq...
Bush stuck his foot in the presidential pie-hole with this statement yesterday.
QUOTE(George W. Bush @ 6-20-2007)
Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical…
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20070620-8.html
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jun 21 2007, 07:01 PM)
Interestingly, 60% of infertility patients are willing to donate their unused embryos for stem cell research, according to Newsweek. And it would seem that decision reflects the feeling of the country (60% of Americans support stem cell research). Too bad our president doesn't care what the citizens of this country think.
You truly have a way of twisting people's words into pretzels (not to mention logic). I never "condemned" you or conservatives in general. It is a FACT that anti-choice (OK, "pro-life" if you must) is a part of the Republican party platform. Prove to me it is not, or just sit there and be offended; it really doesn't matter to me.
QUOTE(Ted)
Since I am a conservative (and favor stem cell research) I take offence to your broad condemnation of all of us and further you connection of this to a war you don’t like (run by a conservative) is a crappy analogy since as I pointed out plenty of non conservatives have sent one hell of a lot more men to die than GWB has or will.
You truly have a way of twisting people's words into pretzels (not to mention logic). I never "condemned" you or conservatives in general. It is a FACT that anti-choice (OK, "pro-life" if you must) is a part of the Republican party platform. Prove to me it is not, or just sit there and be offended; it really doesn't matter to me.
The illogic is in your question.
War and defending the country has squat to do with stem cells and Presidents across the spectrum, from all beliefs have sent men to war – so your typical Bush bashing logic is as empty as the question.
Here is a question equally illogical. Why do we care so much about war dead and are not too concerned about the 100,000 killed every year by our doctors and hospitals? Show me a real mad politician on this issue - LOL
QUOTE
If it is against conscience to use a cell for life-saving purposes, how is it conscionable to use human lives for life-taking purposes?
It isn't. What came to my mind when the President brought up the ol' "it ain't right" argument is the death penalty. Apparently the sancitity of life only applies to the innocent? Perhaps the guilty are subhuman? Anyway, no, it is absolutely morally inconsistant on the President's part to have such a mentality regarding stem cells and such a "strap 'em down and light 'em up" mentality regarding the death penalty. With all of that said...
QUOTE
Is it possible that Bush's veto of the stem cell bill will be overturned?
No, and it shouldn't be. I do not support the appropriations of federal funds to stem cells; not on the same grounds as the President, however. Forcing the taxpayers to pay for scientifict research that could be funded through voluntary investments, in my view, is wrong. So while I support the action of the President, I do not support his reasoning, but hey, how often do I get to say, "I agree with the President's veto"?CP
QUOTE(GuardianAngel @ Jun 21 2007, 09:28 PM)
What i find sickening about your side is that they will jump through their own rectums to save the life of a mass murderer (death penalty) but will slaughter the innocent with glee...
That depends on how you define life. Embryonic stem-cell does not involve life as we would commonly recoginze it.
QUOTE
From these cells, we know we can generate any tissue type in the Petri dish.
http://www.whitehead.mit.edu/news/paradigm..._2007/faqs.html
If you want to assign life to cells in a Petri dish, then be my guest, but how do you equate using cells in a little round dish with "slaughter"? On the other hand, we see vivid images of slaughter coming out of Iraq daily - not cells in a petri dish but, fully developed adults dead or with limbs blown off.
Somebody here is lacking perspective.
This is very simple. Dubya declared a moral principle: Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical. He didn't put qualifications on it. He said it simply and honestly.
If he believes this moral principle and he applies this moral principle consistently (or as well as he can possibly apply it), then he is being moral by his own standards. If doesn't apply this moral principle consistently, then he is being immoral by his own standards.
So when it comes to his own principle, has Dubya been moral or immoral?
If he believes this moral principle and he applies this moral principle consistently (or as well as he can possibly apply it), then he is being moral by his own standards. If doesn't apply this moral principle consistently, then he is being immoral by his own standards.
So when it comes to his own principle, has Dubya been moral or immoral?
" I've always been fascinated how conservatives can revere "life"...as long as it is in a freezer or in the womb, but they don't seem to give a squat if it's actually a living, breathing human being already born." DG
My thoughts exactly! This is all playing out like the broken record it is! (George W. Bush @ 6-20-2007)"Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical… "
"If you want to assign life to cells in a Petri dish, then be my guest, but how do you equate using cells in a little round dish with "slaughter"? On the other hand, we see vivid images of slaughter coming out of Iraq daily - not cells in a petri dish but, fully developed adults dead or with limbs blown off." BofF
IMO cells in a petri dish are not viable human beings; they do not deserve even attention in the ongoing debate of when a fetus becomes viable. Given that 60% of the American public support the stem cell research, and a majority of Americans want an end to the war in Iraq, or at least a time line for withdrawal, does it seem like the majority of us are out of sync with our President? Opposition to Bush's veto crosses party lines, and it baffles me for one how he thinks his actions/lack of action will help his party win in 2008!
"Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-01-bush-cover_x.htm
Perhaps Bush would offer up this same explanation for his most recent veto!
My thoughts exactly! This is all playing out like the broken record it is! (George W. Bush @ 6-20-2007)"Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical… "
"If you want to assign life to cells in a Petri dish, then be my guest, but how do you equate using cells in a little round dish with "slaughter"? On the other hand, we see vivid images of slaughter coming out of Iraq daily - not cells in a petri dish but, fully developed adults dead or with limbs blown off." BofF
IMO cells in a petri dish are not viable human beings; they do not deserve even attention in the ongoing debate of when a fetus becomes viable. Given that 60% of the American public support the stem cell research, and a majority of Americans want an end to the war in Iraq, or at least a time line for withdrawal, does it seem like the majority of us are out of sync with our President? Opposition to Bush's veto crosses party lines, and it baffles me for one how he thinks his actions/lack of action will help his party win in 2008!
"Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-01-bush-cover_x.htm
Perhaps Bush would offer up this same explanation for his most recent veto!
QUOTE(BoF @ Jun 21 2007, 11:04 PM)
If you want to assign life to cells in a Petri dish, then be my guest, but how do you equate using cells in a little round dish with "slaughter"? On the other hand, we see vivid images of slaughter coming out of Iraq daily - not cells in a petri dish but, fully developed adults dead or with limbs blown off. Somebody here is lacking perspective.
Somebody here is lacking perspective.I've attempted to digest this debate, as it really has turned into a debate of:
"How can a leader that has chosen to wage war choose to be concerned with abortion and the pro-life agenda"?
Frankly, I see the point, but wonder if there is a difference in perspective.
Consider this. Some the world's wars (if not most) have had a positive outcome in history. Had we not been involved in WWII or Korea (and arguably had we done our job in Vietnam), history would've probably turned out differently and for the worse in many cases. This is probably even true with the cold war and keeping communism out of parts of the world.
Yes- sending young men and women to die is a decision that I believe surely isn't always warranted or necessary. However, consider that history often tells a story different than current popular opinion. I'm not necessarily a fan of the war or how it's being waged these days, but I believe that sometimes it's a means to an end.
Is an abortion a means to an end? Does it change the history of the world for the better? In my opinion, we're comparing apples to Ford pick ups. Ending a life because a woman wants to be able to fit into her jeans or go to the club on Friday nights with out nasty looks isn't the same as changing the world permanently (which don't you think the French should still be grateful for helping out with that nasty "Hitler problem"??).
To me, this thread is a "Bash GW" topic. It's easy to beat up on ol' GW, but I don't think there's any objective reality to the notions. How can you compare war to Abortion?
Remember- Congress voted to go into this war and hasn't decided to bring the guys/gals home. It's not just the President.
When an abortion happens, it's the woman walking into a clinic and ridding herself of an "inconvenience" and likely a life that would've flourished. Traffic is an inconvenience for me here in Dallas. I wish I could pull out my Remington and rid myself of stupid drivers... sounds sick doesn't it? But somehow abortion doesn't... hmm...
Stem cell research is one of those things where the facts and the science are clouded in the US. Can stem cell research happen without aborted babies? If so... go for it. I think the notion is that it practically cannot happen without a woman deciding to kill the life of a baby growing within her. Afterall... it's swim suit season... can't have that bulge...
QUOTE(GuardianAngel)
What i find sickening about your side is that they will jump through their own rectums to save the life of a mass murderer (death penalty) but will slaughter the innocent with glee...
QUOTE(Ted)
The illogic is in your question.
War and defending the country has squat to do with stem cells and Presidents across the spectrum, from all beliefs have sent men to war – so your typical Bush bashing logic is as empty as the question.
Here is a question equally illogical. Why do we care so much about war dead and are not too concerned about the 100,000 killed every year by our doctors and hospitals? Show me a real mad politician on this issue – LOL
War and defending the country has squat to do with stem cells and Presidents across the spectrum, from all beliefs have sent men to war – so your typical Bush bashing logic is as empty as the question.
Here is a question equally illogical. Why do we care so much about war dead and are not too concerned about the 100,000 killed every year by our doctors and hospitals? Show me a real mad politician on this issue – LOL
All well and good to belittle me, make fun of me, and insult me, but it only reflects badly on you. Once again, I started the topic about Bush’s statements justifying his veto. I don’t view cells in a Petri dish as life; obviously Bush does. This topic isn’t about my views on when life begins; it’s about Bush’s very public statements about his beliefs.
Bush made a very plain statement:
Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical.
So, if destroying a clump of cells is not ethical in his mind, how can sending living, breathing people to their deaths (whether it was the death penalty in Texas or war in Iraq) be ethical?
Oh, and by the way, GuardianAngel, show me anywhere I tried to "save a mass murderer and slaughtered innocents with glee", let alone did the anatomically impossible.
Another thought for you folks - are all the infertility patients willing to donate their unused embryos for stem cell research murderers?
QUOTE(aevans176)
Ending a life because a woman wants to be able to fit into her jeans or go to the club on Friday nights with out nasty looks isn't the same as changing the world permanently.
<snip>
I think the notion is that it practically cannot happen without a woman deciding to kill the life of a baby growing within her. Afterall... it's swim suit season... can't have that bulge...
<snip>
I think the notion is that it practically cannot happen without a woman deciding to kill the life of a baby growing within her. Afterall... it's swim suit season... can't have that bulge...
Do you really think this is the reason the vast majority of abortions take place? Or is this level of misogyny normal for you?
I realize that moral equivalence is an uncomfortable thing to consider when ideology imposes such constraints, but Daffy Girl's question is a fair one. If Bush really believes that terminating a life, even when doing so might save others, is unethical, how does he justify the decision to kill thousands of Iraqi's and sacrifice our own troops? If life really is that sacred, why support the death penalty? Wouldn't executing a prisoner prevent them from killing again, thus saving lives?
Reducing this to an abortion question does a disservice to the actual subject at hand, embryonic stem cell research. The fact is that the legislation Bush vetoed has a chance to save lives, albeit long term. And I'll freely admit that the odds of this research rendering said cure in our lifetime may not be realistic. My agreement with the OP's question is the moral equivalence that our sitting President tries to attach to it. To put it simply, if you truly value life so much, why do you accept the destruction of life in places like Iraq and Darfur?
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Jun 22 2007, 09:17 AM)
Stem cell research is one of those things where the facts and the science are clouded in the US. Can stem cell research happen without aborted babies? If so... go for it. I think the notion is that it practically cannot happen without a woman deciding to kill the life of a baby growing within her. Afterall... it's swim suit season... can't have that bulge...
Your "notions" notwithstanding, aevans, your thinking is incorrect. We are not talking about getting cells from embryos or fetuses at abortion clinics to build up the stem-cell lines. We are talking about obtaining cells from embryos at fertility clinics. The embryos that are no longer needed or wanted by the parents who created them in the first place, because they have already used some of them to produce as many children as they desire, be that one or ten.
Understand this - fertility clinics do not, in fact at this point in time, cannot remove just one or two eggs from a woman. They take, on average 10 to 20 eggs, which are then fertilized, and most of them frozen for future use.
So, what currently happens to all those un-needed fertilized eggs? A few couples may allow one or two of these embryos to be implanted in someone else, and to have the resulting child adopted by the implanted couple. However, the vast majority of these embryos are simply destroyed. And we are talking many thousands of embryos per year:
QUOTE
In a survey of more than one thousand infertility patients with frozen embryos, 60 percent of patients report that they are likely to donate their embryos to stem cell research, a level of donation that could result in roughly 2000 to 3000 new embryonic stem cell lines. Researchers from Duke University and Johns Hopkins University report the startling findings in the July 6, 2007 issue of Science.
--snip--
"Until now, the debate about federal funding for embryonic stem cell research has been dominated by lawmakers and advocates. But what about the preferences of infertility patients, who are ethically responsible for, and have legal authority over, these embryos" asked Ruth Faden, director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics and one of the study's two co-authors. "These patients face the often morally difficult task of deciding what to do with their remaining cryopreserved embryos. In the end, it is these people who determine whether embryos are available for adoption or for medical research."
The 1,020 couples responding to the survey currently control the disposition of between 3,900 to 5,900 embryos. Nearly half of the respondents (49 percent) indicated they were somewhat or very likely to donate their frozen embryos to medical research. When asked about stem cell research in particular, this percentage increased to 60 percent.
--snip--
"Until now, the debate about federal funding for embryonic stem cell research has been dominated by lawmakers and advocates. But what about the preferences of infertility patients, who are ethically responsible for, and have legal authority over, these embryos" asked Ruth Faden, director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics and one of the study's two co-authors. "These patients face the often morally difficult task of deciding what to do with their remaining cryopreserved embryos. In the end, it is these people who determine whether embryos are available for adoption or for medical research."
The 1,020 couples responding to the survey currently control the disposition of between 3,900 to 5,900 embryos. Nearly half of the respondents (49 percent) indicated they were somewhat or very likely to donate their frozen embryos to medical research. When asked about stem cell research in particular, this percentage increased to 60 percent.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70620154934.htm
If we can obtain all of the stem cells we need need from these fertilization clinics, and most of these embryos are going to be destroyed otherwise, why should we not use them?
Now, personally aevans, I feel your assertion that there will be lots of women getting abortions just to "keep their figures" with stem cell collection for the researchers an unintended bonus, to be more than a little offensive and disgusting.
But, if you're so damned worried that somehow abortion clinics will be the setting for a new kind of ghoul, hunting up women to volunteer for abortions in the name of "science and research", then we can certainly write the legislation that would prohibit embryo and fetus collection from these locations for any reason whatsoever, and prohibit payments to women for this kind of activity.
But it seems to me, that right now we have four or five doors in front of us, each with the possibility of curing various diseases behind them. And the government, against the opinion of the majority of the public is saying "well, we will pay for opening up doors one, two, three and five. But we will not pay for opening door number four, regardless of how beneficial it may be to do so." And all to satisfy a small but vocal minority who don't want that door opened for some ideological reason. In my opinion, that's short-sighted.
"Is an abortion a means to an end? Does it change the history of the world for the better? In my opinion, we're comparing apples to Ford pick ups. Ending a life because a woman wants to be able to fit into her jeans or go to the club on Friday nights with out nasty looks isn't the same as changing the world permanently (which don't you think the French should still be grateful for helping out with that nasty "Hitler problem"??).
To me, this thread is a "Bash GW" topic. It's easy to beat up on ol' GW, but I don't think there's any objective reality to the notions. How can you compare war to Abortion?
Remember- Congress voted to go into this war and hasn't decided to bring the guys/gals home. It's not just the President.
When an abortion happens, it's the woman walking into a clinic and ridding herself of an "inconvenience" and likely a life that would've flourished. Traffic is an inconvenience for me here in Dallas. I wish I could pull out my Remington and rid myself of stupid drivers... sounds sick doesn't it? But somehow abortion doesn't... hmm..."
Let me get this straight! Your thinking is that women consider the fit of their clothing and going to clubs as possible reasons why they should abort? Do you have any sisters or know any females? It's difficult to believe that you do. Your comments on this issue are so "over the top"! Dallas traffic and an unwanted pregnancy are the same type of inconvenience?
I hate to admit that I voted for George Bush twice! It's been a real learning experience for me and thousands of others! He believes that he was called by God to go into Iraq and he possibly believes the same thing about stem cell research. When I consider the comment from Rush Limbaugh, one of the main apologists for George Bush, and Limbaugh's total lack of compassion as evidenced by his comment October 23, 2006 regarding Michael J. Foxx, I worry about our country! Using stem cell research isn't taking a life; it's using the medical advancements at hand to save hundreds and hundreds of our own citizens! If we are going to involve GOD in this, why not say that the evolution of medicine which has brought us to this point is provided by Divine intervention? Maybe GOD has allowed our doctors and scientists to arrive at this point of medical knowledge in order to save hundreds of thousands of the living!
Maybe we should suggest this idea to GW; perhaps the thought has never crossed his mind? Do ya think?
Just in case someone isn't familiar with Rush Limbaugh and his rantings....
"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."
To me, this thread is a "Bash GW" topic. It's easy to beat up on ol' GW, but I don't think there's any objective reality to the notions. How can you compare war to Abortion?
Remember- Congress voted to go into this war and hasn't decided to bring the guys/gals home. It's not just the President.
When an abortion happens, it's the woman walking into a clinic and ridding herself of an "inconvenience" and likely a life that would've flourished. Traffic is an inconvenience for me here in Dallas. I wish I could pull out my Remington and rid myself of stupid drivers... sounds sick doesn't it? But somehow abortion doesn't... hmm..."
Let me get this straight! Your thinking is that women consider the fit of their clothing and going to clubs as possible reasons why they should abort? Do you have any sisters or know any females? It's difficult to believe that you do. Your comments on this issue are so "over the top"! Dallas traffic and an unwanted pregnancy are the same type of inconvenience?
I hate to admit that I voted for George Bush twice! It's been a real learning experience for me and thousands of others! He believes that he was called by God to go into Iraq and he possibly believes the same thing about stem cell research. When I consider the comment from Rush Limbaugh, one of the main apologists for George Bush, and Limbaugh's total lack of compassion as evidenced by his comment October 23, 2006 regarding Michael J. Foxx, I worry about our country! Using stem cell research isn't taking a life; it's using the medical advancements at hand to save hundreds and hundreds of our own citizens! If we are going to involve GOD in this, why not say that the evolution of medicine which has brought us to this point is provided by Divine intervention? Maybe GOD has allowed our doctors and scientists to arrive at this point of medical knowledge in order to save hundreds of thousands of the living!
Maybe we should suggest this idea to GW; perhaps the thought has never crossed his mind? Do ya think?
Just in case someone isn't familiar with Rush Limbaugh and his rantings....
"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."
QUOTE(ottimista @ Jun 22 2007, 05:22 PM)
Let me get this straight! Your thinking is that women consider the fit of their clothing and going to clubs as possible reasons why they should abort? Do you have any sisters or know any females? It's difficult to believe that you do. Your comments on this issue are so "over the top"! Dallas traffic and an unwanted pregnancy are the same type of inconvenience?
It has been done.... it is extreme but to say that every abortion in this culture is a thought out thing is ludicrous.
we have nearly 1,000,000 abortions a year ... some of these people are immature and / or unprepared for the things they have chosen. ( see i am pro-choice)
BTW anti-choice = ?
i am all for choice, i like choice, I even like the kind of choices you call "Choice" but i dont think killing someone else is a valid "choice"
all societies that wish to oppress an underclass remove their humanity first .. that is always the first step in the cycle...
please, scientificly tell me what a human embryo is if it is not human, and as a human being, are they not entitled to the same protections?
my son is 8 weeks old, there are some in the "Pro-Choice" camp who believe that he is not human yet ... since he is not yet self-aware.... when is a child afforded the protections of humanity ? viability is a sliding scale now with the work being done on artificial wombs etc...
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/futurebody/dc...bccdrcrd/2.html
and yes there has been some movement , but it is not quite there yet,
viablility is merely a marker of science not humanity.
QUOTE(ottimista @ Jun 22 2007, 05:22 PM)
Just in case someone isn't familiar with Rush Limbaugh and his rantings....
"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."
"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."
and if you had actually listened to that instead of pulling it from somewhere else you would have found that in the commercial in question Michael J Foxx had actually either been off his meds for a few days or had taken 2-3X the recommended limit to "amplify the effects" of the disease .
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/26/...in2128188.shtml
QUOTE(GuardianAngel @ Jun 22 2007, 02:33 PM)
QUOTE(ottimista @ Jun 22 2007, 05:22 PM)
Let me get this straight! Your thinking is that women consider the fit of their clothing and going to clubs as possible reasons why they should abort? Do you have any sisters or know any females? It's difficult to believe that you do. Your comments on this issue are so "over the top"! Dallas traffic and an unwanted pregnancy are the same type of inconvenience?
It has been done.... it is extreme but to say that every abortion in this culture is a thought out thing is ludicrous.
we have nearly 1,000,000 abortions a year ... some of these people are immature and / or unprepared for the things they have chosen. ( see i am pro-choice)
BTW anti-choice = ?
i am all for choice, i like choice, I even like the kind of choices you call "Choice" but i dont think killing someone else is a valid "choice"
all societies that wish to oppress an underclass remove their humanity first .. that is always the first step in the cycle...
please, scientificly tell me what a human embryo is if it is not human, and as a human being, are they not entitled to the same protections?
my son is 8 weeks old, there are some in the "Pro-Choice" camp who believe that he is not human yet ... since he is not yet self-aware.... when is a child afforded the protections of humanity ? viability is a sliding scale now with the work being done on artificial wombs etc...
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/futurebody/dc...bccdrcrd/2.html
and yes there has been some movement , but it is not quite there yet,
viablility is merely a marker of science not humanity.
QUOTE(ottimista @ Jun 22 2007, 05:22 PM)
Just in case someone isn't familiar with Rush Limbaugh and his rantings....
"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."
"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."
and if you had actually listened to that instead of pulling it from somewhere else you would have found that in the commercial in question Michael J Foxx had actually either been off his meds for a few days or had taken 2-3X the recommended limit to "amplify the effects" of the disease .
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/26/...in2128188.shtml
I did actually listen to it! I really used to listen to good old Rush. What excuse or reason could there EVER be for using Michael J. Foxx in this way! Some comments are just plain UNSEEMLY and CRUEL, and Rush knew better the minute the words were out of his mouth I would surmise!
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Jun 22 2007, 09:17 AM)
Is an abortion a means to an end? Does it change the history of the world for the better? In my opinion, we're comparing apples to Ford pick ups. Ending a life because a woman wants to be able to fit into her jeans or go to the club on Friday nights with out nasty looks isn't the same as changing the world permanently (which don't you think the French should still be grateful for helping out with that nasty "Hitler problem"??).
<snip>
Afterall... it's swim suit season... can't have that bulge...
<snip>
Afterall... it's swim suit season... can't have that bulge...
Has Paris Hilton had an abortion?
Seriously, is pregnancy all that offensive to the general public? It'a kind of been going on since the beginning of time. If, what you say is true, maybe the general public needs to grow up.QUOTE(logophage @ Jun 22 2007, 12:09 AM)
This is very simple. Dubya declared a moral principle: Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical. He didn't put qualifications on it. He said it simply and honestly.
If he believes this moral principle and he applies this moral principle consistently (or as well as he can possibly apply it), then he is being moral by his own standards. If doesn't apply this moral principle consistently, then he is being immoral by his own standards.
So when it comes to his own principle, has Dubya been moral or immoral?
If he believes this moral principle and he applies this moral principle consistently (or as well as he can possibly apply it), then he is being moral by his own standards. If doesn't apply this moral principle consistently, then he is being immoral by his own standards.
So when it comes to his own principle, has Dubya been moral or immoral?
This is an interesting postulate and related question logophage.
If, however, one doesn't believe that Bush was honest or straightforward, then we can't answer the question. When I saw Bush make his statement I wanted to run to the porcelain god. I kept thinking...Elmer Gantry...Elmer Gantry...Elmer Gantry.
Bush's poll positive poll number in Newsweek is now 26% vs. 65% negative. I think this veto was about holding onto or getting back some of the base he's lost - perhaps because of his support for immigration legislation.
Latest Newsweek Poll
Look at question #2
QUOTE(GuardianAngel @ Jun 22 2007, 04:33 PM)
my son is 8 weeks old, there are some in the "Pro-Choice" camp who believe that he is not human yet ... since he is not yet self-aware.... when is a child afforded the protections of humanity ?
Would you please clarify? Has your child been in the womb for eight weeks or out of the womb for eight weeks? If you are talking about the latter, I don’t think anyone would suggest terminating the child’s existence. If someone has suggested killing an eight week old baby after its birth date, then please provide some evidence for such.
QUOTE(Guardian Angel)
and if you had actually listened to that instead of pulling it from somewhere else you would have found that in the commercial in question Michael J Foxx had actually either been off his meds for a few days or had taken 2-3X the recommended limit to "amplify the effects" of the disease .
Was Michael J. Fox (I’m spelling it right with one x) on too much medication or too little medication? It has to be one or the other. Do either you or Rush Limbaugh know which it was? C'mon, you have to make a choice.
QUOTE(GuardianAngel)
i am all for choice, i like choice, I even like the kind of choices you call "Choice”
This much is apparent. I understand standards on the net are quite loose, but capitalizing letters at the beginning of a sentence was not a choice when I was in elementary school, junior high school, high school, college or graduate school. Please try to make it a little easier for us old-timers to read.
QUOTE
Are you actually suggesting that wanting to protect what will inevitably become human life precludes me from believing war is sometimes necessary to defend the greater good?
If DG makes a mistake, it is not distinguishing the conflict in Afghanistan from the one in Iraq. One is a justifiable defense of our homeland and security, the latter was undertaken pre-emptively and with little merit. Your argument wins out in regards to Afghanistan, but hers is very much valid in regards to Iraq. It is ironic that a "pro-life" president is the same one who in 2006, oversaw a 50% increase in casulaties in Iraq. It is ironic that in crying over a petri dish, this president's policies in Iraq have led to the deaths of over 34,000 Iraqis according to a 2006 U.N. report. The more recent figures aren't that impressive either.
QUOTE
You are aware the US is not the only country struggling with the ethical issues of such an enterprise?
There is an interesting prospect that we will be left behind in regards to the benefits of this research. The U.K. is definitely off to the races on this.
QUOTE
We are losing ground to other countries with less restrictive policies on embryonic stem cells. This month British government officials announced the first license to use cloning techniques to generate a human embryo to produce stem cells that might be used for the treatment of disease. Other nations are investing heavily -- hundreds of millions of dollars -- in embryonic stem cell research. The United States stands to lose substantially in the global economy of intellectual property and biotechnology. More important, patients everywhere stand to lose. As much as other countries invest, they cannot fill the gap. They are not as well positioned scientifically as the United States to advance stem cell research. Losing ground to other countries also means losing oversight of critical points in the research cycle, over the ethical treatment of human subjects and embryos, and over quality control.
WaPo article.
Nicaragua or Poland may not go for it, but it isn't those countries that we need to be concerned about. Outstanding medical breakthroughs mean a lot of money for companies who seek to find cures.
QUOTE
It is possible. I hope it is not overturned (and I liked Superman and Family Ties!). If it is, I will survive this as I have similarly countenanced the abortion epidemic of the last several decades.
I do agree with you about abortion. I think it's a travesty and something that needs to come to an end in regards to Roe V. Wade being overturned and the matter being taken up for each individaul state. With that being said, I don't believe that a petri dish is akin to a fetus in any way. How far back do we go? All snickering and joking aside, are we then going to protect reproductive cells?
How many of those are "killed" through the fertilization process by not being the lucky "one" to make it? It is absurd to maintain that cells aloen constitute "life" and that they deserve absolute protection.
QUOTE(BoF @ Jun 22 2007, 10:30 PM)
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Jun 22 2007, 09:17 AM)
Is an abortion a means to an end? Does it change the history of the world for the better? In my opinion, we're comparing apples to Ford pick ups. Ending a life because a woman wants to be able to fit into her jeans or go to the club on Friday nights with out nasty looks isn't the same as changing the world permanently (which don't you think the French should still be grateful for helping out with that nasty "Hitler problem"??).
<snip>
Afterall... it's swim suit season... can't have that bulge...
<snip>
Afterall... it's swim suit season... can't have that bulge...
Has Paris Hilton had an abortion?
Seriously, is pregnancy all that offensive to the general public? It'a kind of been going on since the beginning of time. If, what you say is true, maybe the general public needs to grow up.QUOTE(logophage @ Jun 22 2007, 12:09 AM)
This is very simple. Dubya declared a moral principle: Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical. He didn't put qualifications on it. He said it simply and honestly.
If he believes this moral principle and he applies this moral principle consistently (or as well as he can possibly apply it), then he is being moral by his own standards. If doesn't apply this moral principle consistently, then he is being immoral by his own standards.
So when it comes to his own principle, has Dubya been moral or immoral?
If he believes this moral principle and he applies this moral principle consistently (or as well as he can possibly apply it), then he is being moral by his own standards. If doesn't apply this moral principle consistently, then he is being immoral by his own standards.
So when it comes to his own principle, has Dubya been moral or immoral?
This is an interesting postulate and related question logophage.
If, however, one doesn't believe that Bush was honest or straightforward, then we can't answer the question. When I saw Bush make his statement I wanted to run to the porcelain god. I kept thinking...Elmer Gantry...Elmer Gantry...Elmer Gantry.
Bush's poll positive poll number in Newsweek is now 26% vs. 65% negative. I think this veto was about holding onto or getting back some of the base he's lost - perhaps because of his support for immigration legislation.
Latest Newsweek Poll
Look at question #2
QUOTE(GuardianAngel @ Jun 22 2007, 04:33 PM)
my son is 8 weeks old, there are some in the "Pro-Choice" camp who believe that he is not human yet ... since he is not yet self-aware.... when is a child afforded the protections of humanity ?
Would you please clarify? Has your child been in the womb for eight weeks or out of the womb for eight weeks? If you are talking about the latter, I don’t think anyone would suggest terminating the child’s existence. If someone has suggested killing an eight week old baby after its birth date, then please provide some evidence for such.
QUOTE(Guardian Angel)
and if you had actually listened to that instead of pulling it from somewhere else you would have found that in the commercial in question Michael J Foxx had actually either been off his meds for a few days or had taken 2-3X the recommended limit to "amplify the effects" of the disease .
Was Michael J. Fox (I’m spelling it right with one x) on too much medication or too little medication? It has to be one or the other. Do either you or Rush Limbaugh know which it was? C'mon, you have to make a choice.
QUOTE(GuardianAngel)
i am all for choice, i like choice, I even like the kind of choices you call "Choice”
This much is apparent. I understand standards on the net are quite loose, but capitalizing letters at the beginning of a sentence was not a choice when I was in elementary school, junior high school, high school, college or graduate school. Please try to make it a little easier for us old-timers to read.
yes, as a matter of fact Mr. Peter Singer ( the chair of bioethics at princeton) had this zinger
QUOTE("Peter Singer)
Anyone who ascribes rights to babies or humans with intellectual disabilities must be willing to attribute rights to beings who can't understand the concept," Singer said. "It's the moral agents, the ones who are acting, who need to understand the concept. Those to whom we attribute rights, do not need to understand these concepts."
Got it?
all you have to do is look up bioethics or utilitarianism to find a huge list of people who think that babies should be allowed to be killed after birth ... they see very little distinction between abortion and infanticide ( i tend to share this view but with the idea that they should be protected .... )
I need to start a thread on humanity ... this Kutts guy gets dinged for 2 murders for killing a pregnant woman, but let a doctor kill a baby with the mothers approval and it is OK...
I guess whether you are human or not depends on who wants you around ... like i said the first step in oppression is dehumanization.
Oh, and as for michael J Fox. I linked to an interview where he said he was OVER medicated.
QUOTE(GuardianAngel @ Jun 25 2007, 05:23 PM)
QUOTE("Peter Singer)
Anyone who ascribes rights to babies or humans with intellectual disabilities must be willing to attribute rights to beings who can't understand the concept," Singer said. "It's the moral agents, the ones who are acting, who need to understand the concept. Those to whom we attribute rights, do not need to understand these concepts."
It would, of course, be asking too much that you provide a link to Singer's statement.
I am not getting the same thing out of that statement that you are.
What he seems to be saying is that even if a person doesn't understand the concept of rights, as with the mentlly retarded, that does not nullify those rights.
I don't see that this statement has anything to do with rights before birth.
QUOTE(GuardianAngel)
this Kutts guy gets dinged for 2 murders for killing a pregnant woman, but let a doctor kill a baby with the mothers approval and it is OK…
To start with, Bobby Cutts has not been tried yet, so he’s not “dinged” until convicted. We can turn the question on it’s head here. Why is it worse to killing a pregnant woman than one who isn’t. The answer is aggravation. Scott Peterson is on death row, not for killing Lacy Peterson, but for killing Lacy and his "unborn child." Some state legislatures have decided the additional murder of the fetus makes it aggravated murder and worthy of the death penalty.
Then again, how we get from cells in a Petri dish to fetuses is a question you still haven't answered.
Fine ... than let me make it plain to you ...
In Chapter 4 we saw that the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. This conclusion is not limited to infants who, because of irreversible intellectual disabilities, will never be rational, self-conscious beings. We saw in our discussion of abortion that the potential of a fetus to become a rational, self-conscious being cannot count against killing it at a stage when it lacks these characteristics - not, that is, unless we are also prepared to count the value of rational self-conscious life as a reason against contraception and celibacy. No infant - disabled or not - has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.
Excerpted from Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1993, page 177
I was asked to provide proof of the attitude of infanticide .... well this is from one of peter singers textbooks...
so yes virginia i guess there are those that advocate killing infants or at least extending "abortion" to the point of self-awareness
In Chapter 4 we saw that the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. This conclusion is not limited to infants who, because of irreversible intellectual disabilities, will never be rational, self-conscious beings. We saw in our discussion of abortion that the potential of a fetus to become a rational, self-conscious being cannot count against killing it at a stage when it lacks these characteristics - not, that is, unless we are also prepared to count the value of rational self-conscious life as a reason against contraception and celibacy. No infant - disabled or not - has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.
Excerpted from Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1993, page 177
I was asked to provide proof of the attitude of infanticide .... well this is from one of peter singers textbooks...
so yes virginia i guess there are those that advocate killing infants or at least extending "abortion" to the point of self-awareness
QUOTE(GuardianAngel @ Jun 25 2007, 10:28 PM)
I was asked to provide proof of the attitude of infanticide .... well this is from one of peter singers textbooks...
so yes virginia i guess there are those that advocate killing infants or at least extending "abortion" to the point of self-awareness
so yes virginia i guess there are those that advocate killing infants or at least extending "abortion" to the point of self-awareness
You are partially correct, but I don’t think the passage you quoted from Singer's textbook says this.
QUOTE("Peter Singer)
Anyone who ascribes rights to babies or humans with intellectual disabilities must be willing to attribute rights to beings who can't understand the concept," Singer said. "It's the moral agents, the ones who are acting, who need to understand the concept. Those to whom we attribute rights, do not need to understand these concepts."
Just for the record, Peter Singer does not support wholesale infanticide, but that limited to cases where a newborn infant would live a life of pain. During my years as a special education teacher, I saw kids - athough generaly, I didn’t work with profoundly handicapped - that were in no better condition than Terri Schiavo. I’m not advocating taking life from these children (or young adults) or necessarily agreeing with Singer’s 28 days after birth window, but I do know that some children are born in a vegetative state, some are in pain, some born without limbs. etc.
QUOTE
Suppose, for example, that parents knew in advance of a baby's birth that it would be born without arms and legs. In such cases, Singer supports the parents' right to terminate this life. His view becomes more controversial, however, when he argues that the same principle applies up to 28 days after birth. In the case of lives that would be irredeemably difficult and painful, Singer endorses not simply euthanasia of the unborn, but infanticide. What, asks Singer, is the difference between a seriously impaired fetus and a newborn? The mere fact that the latter is alive outside of the womb is trivial for him, since in either case this being has a painful life ahead of it that is not worth living.
Amid the overheated attacks on Singer, it is important to highlight what he is not saying: he does not advocate that the State begin to abort or kill any and all disabled fetuses or newborns; rather, parents, together with their physicians, should have the right to decide whether the infant's life will be so miserable that it would be inhumane to prolong it. Singer clearly is not offering carte blanch on killing babies: He would establish very strict conditions on permissible instances of infanticide, but these conditions might owe more to the effects of infanticide on others than to any intrinsic wrongness of killing an infant.
Amid the overheated attacks on Singer, it is important to highlight what he is not saying: he does not advocate that the State begin to abort or kill any and all disabled fetuses or newborns; rather, parents, together with their physicians, should have the right to decide whether the infant's life will be so miserable that it would be inhumane to prolong it. Singer clearly is not offering carte blanch on killing babies: He would establish very strict conditions on permissible instances of infanticide, but these conditions might owe more to the effects of infanticide on others than to any intrinsic wrongness of killing an infant.
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Saint...er--summary.htm
Regardless, this thread is about cells in a Petri dish - not abortion; not infanticide.
I don't understand how discussions about Bush wrongly vetoing Stem Cell legislation always turns into a discussion about abortion. Anyone who does understand that, please send me five bucks. Thanks!
First of all, it is not against conscience to use a cell for life-saving purposes. It is against conscience not to use a cell for life-saving purposes. That is my opinion, and not likely to change. It is never conscionable to use human lives for life-taking purposes. The whole concept is cut and dried. Stem cells can be used by science, instead of throwing them away. Profitting on war is a crime, and those who manufacture the weapons, and send soldiers to other countries are criminals. Sorry if I was too namby-pamby on that.
I guess "possible" is a word that applies, but that's as far as I'd take it. "Probable?" No. I doubt it will happen. Too many Congresscritters think they would be losing the religious vote, and we can't have that.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jun 21 2007, 02:03 PM)
If it is against conscience to use a cell for life-saving purposes, how is it conscionable to use human lives for life-taking purposes?
First of all, it is not against conscience to use a cell for life-saving purposes. It is against conscience not to use a cell for life-saving purposes. That is my opinion, and not likely to change. It is never conscionable to use human lives for life-taking purposes. The whole concept is cut and dried. Stem cells can be used by science, instead of throwing them away. Profitting on war is a crime, and those who manufacture the weapons, and send soldiers to other countries are criminals. Sorry if I was too namby-pamby on that.
QUOTE
Is it possible that Bush’s veto of the stem cell bill will be overturned?
I guess "possible" is a word that applies, but that's as far as I'd take it. "Probable?" No. I doubt it will happen. Too many Congresscritters think they would be losing the religious vote, and we can't have that.
As most here, I see no problem at all with stem cell research. Since skin cells can be converted to stem cells, does that mean every time G.W. Bush nicks himself shaving in the morning, he has killed several human beings? ...not including those already mentioned, who are normally killed during that part of the day in Iraq.
The purpose of a cell is to add to the life of one person, - if it adds to medical knowledge, then it adds to the lives of everyone.
The purpose of a cell is to add to the life of one person, - if it adds to medical knowledge, then it adds to the lives of everyone.
Could their be a question regarding the drug companies and their profits or lack of profits? Lack of profits would certainly be the case if stem cell research were to be passed by Congress. Just consider the money big drug companies would lose if many of these frightful diseases were "put out of business" because of stem cell research. If even a few lawmakers held stock in these drug companies, and as I suspect, have no conscience, would they truly vote for stem cell research even knowing that it would benefit mankind? Some of these "legitimate reasons" we are hearing may not be the case at all!
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.