So now that Mr. Bush has vetoed the stem cell bill, I have a question

thewise1 · 07-19-2006, 03:36 PM

Everything I've read about the bill says that it merely allows federal funding for research using embryos, rather than lifting a ban on the actual research. I do confess that I have not read the bill in question.

So, my question - is it actually banned, or is it just federal funding that is banned?

motivez · 07-19-2006, 03:38 PM

Research isn't banned afaik, just no funding allowed from the federal level ... except on the stem cell lines that already existed prior to some arbitrary date he set up.

The problem with his rationale about those "snowflake children" or whatever they're called is that there's going to be plenty that are simply discarded. I would think if he believes they're life, it'd be more moral to ensure that the potential for that life is used for something that will benefit humanity rather than simply tossed in the trashcan and disposed of.

It's really pretty odd logic.

thewise1 · 07-19-2006, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Research isn't banned afaik, just no funding allowed from the federal level ... except on the stem cell lines that already existed prior to some arbitrary date he set up.

The problem with his rationale about those "snowflake children" or whatever they're called is that there's going to be plenty that are simply discarded. I would think if he believes they're life, it'd be more moral to ensure that the potential for that life is used for something that will benefit humanity rather than simply tossed in the trashcan and disposed of.

It's really pretty odd logic.

Well, I didn't intend to argue the logic, my intent was more to ask why the hell this is federally funded anyway

I do support his choice for once, but that's not the point here

motivez · 07-19-2006, 03:46 PM

Do you support any federal funding of scientific research?

I think that is most definitely "promoting the general welfare" or whatever the exact language is

nerfball · 07-19-2006, 03:48 PM

I'm upset about this. Bush's stance is only because of the religious implecations regarding the "unborn". Its ridiculous. This could be one of the biggest breakthrough in medicine we have ever seen and we are pussyfooting around because of the pressure from the religious lobby. it makes me sick.

Donkey® · 07-19-2006, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Do you support any federal funding of scientific research?

I think that is most definitely "promoting the general welfare" or whatever the exact language is

It really ticks me off that the government will fund such "scientific research" as using microwaves to kill/disarm crowds but not this. I guess weapon = good. Saving life = bad.

thewise1 · 07-19-2006, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Do you support any federal funding of scientific research?

I think that is most definitely "promoting the general welfare" or whatever the exact language is

What I don't understand is why pharmecuetical (sp?) companies get all this federal help researching anything and then get to sell it afterward. If it became public domain, then that might be different.

thewise1 · 07-19-2006, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by nerfball

I'm upset about this. Bush's stance is only because of the religious implecations regarding the "unborn". Its ridiculous. This could be one of the biggest breakthrough in medicine we have ever seen and we are pussyfooting around because of the pressure from the religious lobby. it makes me sick.

It's not a religious thing to believe that an embryo is a human life, although admittedly its mostly religious folks that believe it.

Quite frankly it's the crux of the entire abortion debate, you guys say it's a clump of cells, I say it's a human life. I don't expect you to agree with me, but I'd be hypocritical if I was ok with this but against abortion.

6SpeedTA95 · 07-19-2006, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

It's not a religious thing to believe that an embryo is a human life, although admittedly its mostly religious folks that believe it.

Quite frankly it's the crux of the entire abortion debate, you guys say it's a clump of cells, I say it's a human life. I don't expect you to agree with me, but I'd be hypocritical if I was ok with this but against abortion.

No one is talking about harvesting embryo's are they? If not then I fail to see how stem cell research is the same as abortion if we're talking about stem cells that would otherwise be disguarded. Seems like a blatent waste to me.

lew · 07-19-2006, 04:16 PM

Good for him.

I'm glad he vetoed it.

Simply because I'm against 99% of federal funding of anything.

thewise1 · 07-19-2006, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

No one is talking about harvesting embryo's are they? If not then I fail to see how stem cell research is the same as abortion if we're talking about stem cells that would otherwise be disguarded. Seems like a blatent waste to me.

To be perfectly objective, they did pass another bill that outlaws the farming of embryos for stem cells.

However, this only encourages more rationalization for abortion "oh well not only am I getting rid of what would hurt my life, I'm helping others too"

DosEquis · 07-19-2006, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

What I don't understand is why pharmecuetical (sp?) companies get all this federal help researching anything and then get to sell it afterward. If it became public domain, then that might be different.

I can agree with that, OR they could pay back what they recieved for research. Same thing for subsidies for oil companies

6SpeedTA95 · 07-19-2006, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

To be perfectly objective, they did pass another bill that outlaws the farming of embryos for stem cells.

However, this only encourages more rationalization for abortion "oh well not only am I getting rid of what would hurt my life, I'm helping others too"

I dont think this will increase the number of abortions, I just dont buy that. Maybe I'm wrong but people have been getting abortions for years. Those that truly want an abortion will continue to get them and those that are questioning themselves wont be pushed into it by this. At least not in my opinion.

ballz2wallz · 07-19-2006, 04:38 PM

i'm glad he blocked federal funding of this. of all the research areas to fund, this one doesn't need federal funding just yet.

6SpeedTA95 · 07-19-2006, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I can agree with that, OR they could pay back what they recieved for research. Same thing for subsidies for oil companies

If companies are paying in more than they're getting back its a tax cut not a subsidy

thewise1 · 07-19-2006, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I can agree with that, OR they could pay back what they recieved for research. Same thing for subsidies for oil companies

Exactly... it's taxpayers investing in these companies without any direct return

ballz2wallz · 07-19-2006, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Exactly... it's taxpayers investing in these companies without any direct return

scientific progress is direct return enough. who uses the drugs and advancements these companies make?

thewise1 · 07-19-2006, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I dont think this will increase the number of abortions, I just dont buy that. Maybe I'm wrong but people have been getting abortions for years. Those that truly want an abortion will continue to get them and those that are questioning themselves wont be pushed into it by this. At least not in my opinion.

I don't know that but I don't want to contribute to it either. Again though, my real issue here is with the feds funding it.

thewise1 · 07-19-2006, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

scientific progress is direct return enough. who uses the drugs and advancements these companies make?

Yes, we use them - after we pay for them again.

ballz2wallz · 07-19-2006, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Yes, we use them - after we pay for them again.

i don't mind paying for live-saving drugs. without antibiotics, we would have had a very small chance of being here