A Veto on Science

Started by xmarksthespot4 pages

A Veto on Science

Bush 'out of touch' on stem cells
BBC

Scientists have reacted with anger to US President George W Bush's decision to veto a bill allowing federal funding for new embryonic stem cell research.

They argue it will damage a promising field of medical research.

Leading researchers labelled Mr Bush "hypocritical", "out of touch" and "selfish" over his decision not to sign into law a bill approved by Congress.

Mr Bush argued that the law "crossed a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect".

Polls suggest most Americans back the research, which scientists hope will lead to cures for serious illnesses such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and diabetes.

The vetoed bill, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, would have scrapped limits on federal funding imposed by Mr Bush in 2001. It was the first time in his presidency that Mr Bush refused to sign into law a bill approved by Congress.

The bill failed to reach the two-thirds majority in its Senate vote which would have overturned the presidential veto.

'Strange morality'

In Britain, the President's decision drew anger and derision from the research community.

It is a strange morality that pins the moral status and life of the embryo on the question of who is paying for the research
Graeme Laurie

It re-emphasised "how out of touch he is with rational thinking on this issue," said Robin Lovell-Badge, head of developmental genetics at the National Institute for Medical Research.

The blocking of federal funds for research on embryonic stem cells is "slowing down the global effort to develop therapies for a range of diseases and illnesses," added Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society.

Mr Bush summed up his opposition to the bill on ethical grounds. "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life of the hope of finding medical benefits for others," he said.

But Graeme Laurie, an expert in the legal side of medicine from Edinburgh University, said there was an "underlying hypocrisy" in Mr Bush's position.

"The stated reason for President Bush's objection to embryonic stem cell research is that 'murder is wrong'; why then does he not intervene to regulate or ban [embryonic] stem cell research carried out with private funds and which is happening across the US?" he asked.

"It is a strange morality indeed that pins the moral status and life of the embryo on the question of who is paying for the research."

No new lines

The 2001 federal funding regulation provides government money only for lines of stem cells that already existed when the order came into effect, not for any new lines.

But US researchers say that sticking to these lines restricts progress.

Jeffrey Balser, associate vice-chancellor for research at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, said US institutions were "on the threshold of phenomenal progress in stem cell research.

"But we are being slowed by these federal restrictions," he told The Tennessean website and newspaper.

The Senate vote came at the end of two days of emotional debates on three separate stem cell bills.

Two other less controversial bills received unanimous backing from the Senate, and were signed into law by President Bush.

One encourages stem cell research using cells from sources other than embryos, and the other bill bans the growing and aborting of foetuses for research.

The stem cell debate now seems set to be an issue in November's mid-term congressional elections.


After five years the President has yet to veto a bill, not because of some magical harmony between the Legislative and the Executive, but because on most of the legislation he signs, there is an addendum signing statement in which he nullifies legislative effect on the Administration, and executive branch agencies.

He uses his first veto on a bipartisan bill aimed at furthering research into debilitating diseases that affect millions.

"science is what again?? something I dont understand and must therefore be bad"............... thats the thinking of GW Bush.

Re: A Veto on Science

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
He uses his first veto on a bipartisan bill aimed at furthering research into debilitating diseases that affect millions.

You have oversimplified the issue. There is ethical concern over embryonic stem cell research. There is valid support for both sides, and it is reasonable to have a stance against the area of embryonic stem cell research. Further research needs to be made into adult stem cell research prior to the pursuit of embryonic stem cell research being pushed. Adult stem cells are an option that has not been researched fully, and may provide just as much benefit as embryonic stem cell use. Embryonic stem cells are merely a universal where adult stem cells would be locally constrained.

I would refer you to the article On Human Embryos and Stem Cell Research: An Appeal for Legally and Ethically Responsible Science and Public Policy by the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. This article was a portion of a text used in an Ethics in Biotechnology course I took. For reference the text is: Ethical Issues in Biotechnology, Edited by Richard Sherlock and John D. Morrey.

Bush is an idiot...

Originally posted by Flamboyant4Life
Bush is an idiot...

Yes, but that doesn't mean that his decisions are always improper, only that they are made due to idiotic and wrong reasoning

Contrary to what most people beleive, little to no progress has been made in the scientific arena of Stem cell research other than the very low effective percentage of usable embyros from fetal subjects. Stem cell research, while having the potential to possibly save lives, requires the harvesting of the cells from infants that are basically required to be aborted -killed, and then extracting the cells. So far, not only are such underdeveloped cells unstable and very difficult to use, they have proved ineffective in the scientific program so far, and a possible continuation could lead to hundreds, if not thousands more abortions on the part of scientific research that is not yet proven to even work, all for the sake of what? The lives of rich, old movie stars? The program and benefits of stem cell research no doubt are incredibly costly and only the rich would end up with the option of using it anyways in the near future.

Despite it all though, ANY sane, normal, caring person who gives a **** about other people's lives, even unborn ones, should know that scientific progress should not be built on the bodies of other humans...even Bush knows that. And dont give me any more crap about how they arent alive yet -thats BS.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
...even Bush knows that. And dont give me any more crap about how they arent alive yet -thats BS.

No one has ever said that a growing baby isn't alive. A viable human being, now that's another thing.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
No one has ever said that a growing baby isn't alive. A viable human being, now that's another thing.

So it's an alive, growing baby..... but still okay to kill.

Riiiiight......

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Contrary to what most people beleive, little to no progress has been made in the scientific arena of Stem cell research other than the very low effective percentage of usable embyros from fetal subjects. Stem cell research, while having the potential to possibly save lives, requires the harvesting of the cells from infants that are basically required to be aborted -killed, and then extracting the cells. So far, not only are such underdeveloped cells unstable and very difficult to use, they have proved ineffective in the scientific program so far, and a possible continuation could lead to hundreds, if not thousands more abortions on the part of scientific research that is not yet proven to even work, all for the sake of what? The lives of rich, old movie stars? The program and benefits of stem cell research no doubt are incredibly costly and only the rich would end up with the option of using it anyways in the near future.

Despite it all though, ANY sane, normal, caring person who gives a **** about other people's lives, even unborn ones, should know that scientific progress should not be built on the bodies of other humans...even Bush knows that. And dont give me any more crap about how they arent alive yet -thats BS.

👆 ✅

Glad to see that my President is doing what I elected him to do.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
So it's an alive, growing baby..... but still okay to kill.

Riiiiight...... 👆 ✅

Yup.

Dude, that's f*cking sad.

How can you actually justify such a logic?

Especially when there are plenty of adult cem stells to study?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Dude, that's f*cking sad.

How can you actually justify such a logic?

Especially when there are plenty of adult cem stells to study?

It's sad that you make a difference between the two. Babys first, humanity second?

They're the same thing, seeing as all humanity was once a baby, and humanity wouldn't continue without new generations of babies to grown into adults, who .....etc...

Dude, if you honestly put the needs of human societies medical advances, over the lives of babies then you are a poor member of the human species.

Well if they kill a thousand fetus's and the end result is saving hundreds of thousands of people, it can then be justified.

And how can you make the judgement that fetus's has developed a soul?

And how can you think it is wrong to test on fetus's when you mention nothing wrong with humans doing medical tests on animals?

Humans are killing animals by the thousands every day, but you think that it is unfair to test on a fetus.

If you say that a fetus has a soul, that i am justified to say that a animal has a soul.

Originally posted by The thinker
Well if they kill a thousand fetus's and the end result is saving hundreds of thousands of people, it can then be justified.

And how can you make the judgement that fetus's has developed a soul?

And how can you think it is wrong to test on fetus's when you mention nothing wrong with humans doing medical tests on animals?

Humans are killing animals by the thousands every day, but you think that it is unfair to test on a fetus.

If you say that a fetus has a soul, that i am justified to say that a animal has a soul.

Where did I say anything about testing animals?

Either way, you can't compare animals to humans.

Yes, humans have souls.

I have one, cap has one, so do you.

Or if you aren't spiritual, a person has thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, etc....

animals do not.

We are given dominion over the earth, through reasoning and emotional relationships with others we prove that our life is far more valuable than that of a creature who lives by instincts.

Trying to compare a fetus, a human life form that will be a person like you or I, to a beast is absurd.

ESCs are harvested from blastocyst stage embryos.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
ESCs are harvested from blastocyst stage embryos.

But is it necessary to use these? Why not adult stem cells?

Re: Re: A Veto on Science

Originally posted by Regret
You have oversimplified the issue. There is ethical concern over embryonic stem cell research. There is valid support for both sides, and it is reasonable to have a stance against the area of embryonic stem cell research. Further research needs to be made into adult stem cell research prior to the pursuit of embryonic stem cell research being pushed. Adult stem cells are an option that has not been researched fully, and may provide just as much benefit as embryonic stem cell use. Embryonic stem cells are merely a universal where adult stem cells would be locally constrained.

I would refer you to the article On Human Embryos and Stem Cell Research: An Appeal for Legally and Ethically Responsible Science and Public Policy by the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. This article was a portion of a text used in an Ethics in Biotechnology course I took. For reference the text is: Ethical Issues in Biotechnology, Edited by Richard Sherlock and John D. Morrey.

Pluripotency vs multipotency. I see no ethical dilemma in using cells derived from embryos in cold storage and scheduled for destruction regardless.

yes, but how can you justify when something has got a soul, can you say that when a man has sex, he is evil because he is killing millions of sperms, because i can say that sperms have souls.

Neither of us are in a postition to juistify when something has a soul.

And if you think you can, then you are totaly ignorant.

And let me not get into a debate about animals having souls, there are many documented cases that indicate that primates are self concious---- but lets leave that debate for another time

Originally posted by sithsaber408
They're the same thing, seeing as all humanity was once a baby, and humanity wouldn't continue without new generations of babies to grown into adults, who .....etc...

Dude, if you honestly put the needs of human societies medical advances, over the lives of babies then you are a poor member of the human species.

You wound me to the core. Surely you didn't think I was unaware that you thought I was a poor representative of the human species. You don't give me enough credit.

Originally posted by Regret
Further research needs to be made into adult stem cell research prior to the pursuit of embryonic stem cell research being pushed. Adult stem cells are an option that has not been researched fully, and may provide just as much benefit as embryonic stem cell use. Embryonic stem cells are merely a universal where adult stem cells would be locally constrained.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Contrary to what most people beleive, little to no progress has been made in the scientific arena of Stem cell research other than the very low effective percentage of usable embyros from fetal subjects. Stem cell research, while having the potential to possibly save lives, requires the harvesting of the cells from infants that are basically required to be aborted -killed, and then extracting the cells. So far, not only are such underdeveloped cells unstable and very difficult to use, they have proved ineffective in the scientific program so far, and a possible continuation could lead to hundreds, if not thousands more abortions on the part of scientific research that is not yet proven to even work, all for the sake of what? The lives of rich, old movie stars? The program and benefits of stem cell research no doubt are incredibly costly and only the rich would end up with the option of using it anyways in the near future.

Despite it all though, ANY sane, normal, caring person who gives a **** about other people's lives, even unborn ones, should know that scientific progress should not be built on the bodies of other humans...even Bush knows that. And dont give me any more crap about how they arent alive yet -thats BS.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Dude, that's f*cking sad.

How can you actually justify such a logic?

Especially when there are plenty of adult cem stells to study?

Originally posted by Regret
But is it necessary to use these? Why not adult stem cells?

Embryonic Stem Cells Repair Paralysis in Rats