Worthy News: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill As Promised - ABC News

[mrcorey]

That's yet another example of twisting things rather than giving a direct answer. I am not saying they should use stem cells to do research into anything. I am asking why the government should finance stem-cell research over heart disease or cancer research? Why is it more important when more people would be helped by cures for heart disease or cancer cures? I am saying that there are many diseases and afflictions that the government could spend money on researching that wouldn't destroy any life so why the obsession with stem-cell research if not for political gain on the part of liberals?

You're the one that likes to side step and talk, and talk, and talk.

You obviously don't know much about this kind of research or you would realise that cancer and heart disease are two of the diseases they might be able to cure or find better treatments for. The democrats see the astronomical potential here for everyday people and helping this research along will of course help them politically too..... Especially when the republicans are opposing it for political reasons only; not moral reasons. Like I said, if they really thought the destruction of microscopic embryos was immoral they would introduce a bill to ban invitro altogether. That'd take care of that. (I get tired of repeating myself for you Butero).

http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/scilit/h...hlights2004.asp

http://www.fda.gov/cber/genetherapy/celltherapyheart.htm

Now, you could have looked that up for yourself.

I think they should pursue all types of stem-cell research and even pursue cloning body parts. Can you imagine growing a new heart or kidney instead of "praying" for a transpant donor (praying that somebody else dies so you can get theirs.)

Amen!

Be Blessed

in Him;

-c-

[anti-hillbilly]

I couldn't care less about how they got where they are today.

Obviously, right and wrong are not as important to you as "might makes right"; "my way or the highway".

That is irrelevant to the fact it is absurd to want them to be even close to able to defend themselves from this country by means of having a nuclear arsenal.

Off topic again BUT at least you seem to acknowledge that they do need to defend themselves from this country.

As someone else asked, whose side are you on? I guess like most liberals you are neutral.

I answered that [here]; no need for you to put inaccurate words in my mouth. I think I'm a heck of a lot more loyal and patriotic than you are Butero; at least I don't want to see a theocracy steamroll over our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Back on topic:

I'm glad to see Schwartznegger take positive action on this issue. I hadn't heard about that thanks for posting the link River.

I'm also happy to see that at least two other posters at this board are on the same page with me.

[anti-hillbilly]

I couldn't care less about how they got where they are today.

Obviously, right and wrong are not as important to you as "might makes right"; "my way or the highway".

That is irrelevant to the fact it is absurd to want them to be even close to able to defend themselves from this country by means of having a nuclear arsenal.

Off topic again BUT at least you seem to acknowledge that they do need to defend themselves from this country.

As someone else asked, whose side are you on? I guess like most liberals you are neutral.

I answered that [here]; no need for you to put inaccurate words in my mouth. I think I'm a heck of a lot more loyal and patriotic than you are Butero; at least I don't want to see a theocracy steamroll over our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Back on topic:

I'm glad to see Schwartznegger take positive action on this issue. I hadn't heard about that thanks for posting the link River.

I'm also happy to see that at least two other posters at this board are on the same page with me.

Anyone that wants to see Iran have nuclear weapons to "defend itself" from America is a traitor. They have no patriotism whatsoever. You attacked the Shah of Iran and the fact this nation supported him, yet you are fine with the current leader who desires to destroy the nation of Israel having nuclear weapons.

As far as what I said about the fact I don't care about our past involvement with Iran in relation to creating some type of even playing field today, this has nothing to do with my way or the highway. Anyone with half a brain in their head that is an American citizen would prefer that our nation be stronger than our enemies. You would have to be a complete kook to feel otherwise, because they could use those weapons against us in the future.

Once again, I applaud President Bush for doing the right thing in vetoing the use of my tax dollars to fund embronic stem cell research. It makes me glad I voted for him both times.

LOL, You're the traitor not me. I served this country for 2 enlistments as have relatives. For someone who's always talking about biblical values it's become obvious that you lean toward those more cruel and barbaric parts of the bible; not the "love they neightbor as thyself" parts. I've seen no kindness from you about anything on these boards so far; you're like some stern Puritan who sews people's lips together for blasphemy. What a butthead!

Here's a suggestion for ya Butero, call your representatives in Washington and ask them to sponsor a bill banning invitro fertilization; see if that one doesn't go over like a turd in the punchbowl!

[link]

Edited July 22, 2006 by anti-hillbilly

[anti-hillbilly]

I couldn't care less about how they got where they are today.

Obviously, right and wrong are not as important to you as "might makes right"; "my way or the highway".

That is irrelevant to the fact it is absurd to want them to be even close to able to defend themselves from this country by means of having a nuclear arsenal.

Off topic again BUT at least you seem to acknowledge that they do need to defend themselves from this country.

As someone else asked, whose side are you on? I guess like most liberals you are neutral.

I answered that [here]; no need for you to put inaccurate words in my mouth. I think I'm a heck of a lot more loyal and patriotic than you are Butero; at least I don't want to see a theocracy steamroll over our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Back on topic:

I'm glad to see Schwartznegger take positive action on this issue. I hadn't heard about that thanks for posting the link River.

I'm also happy to see that at least two other posters at this board are on the same page with me.

Anyone that wants to see Iran have nuclear weapons to "defend itself" from America is a traitor. They have no patriotism whatsoever. You attacked the Shah of Iran and the fact this nation supported him, yet you are fine with the current leader who desires to destroy the nation of Israel having nuclear weapons.

As far as what I said about the fact I don't care about our past involvement with Iran in relation to creating some type of even playing field today, this has nothing to do with my way or the highway. Anyone with half a brain in their head that is an American citizen would prefer that our nation be stronger than our enemies. You would have to be a complete kook to feel otherwise, because they could use those weapons against us in the future.

Once again, I applaud President Bush for doing the right thing in vetoing the use of my tax dollars to fund embronic stem cell research. It makes me glad I voted for him both times.

LOL, You're the traitor not me. I served this country for 2 enlistments as have relatives. For someone who's always talking about biblical values it's become obvious that you lean toward those more cruel and barbaric parts of the bible; not the "love they neightbor as thyself" parts. I've seen no kindness from you about anything on these boards so far; you're like some stern Puritan who sews people's lips together for blasphemy. What a butthead!

Here's a suggestion for ya Butero, call your representatives in Washington and ask them to sponsor a bill banning invitro fertilization; see if that one doesn't go over like a turd in the punchbowl!

[link]

I believe the entire Bible, verses about God's judgement and his love. You on the other hand seem to believe you can pick and choose what parts of scripture to believe. If part is right and part is wrong, that means the love scriptures could be the ones in error and the ones you call "cruel and barbaric could be true.

I am thankful you are no longer in the military. We don't need people "serving this country" who desire that Iran be able to defend itself from our own soldiers.

You pick and choose more than I do and you're the one who says you believe the dogma of biblical innerrancy! -- You choose the negative; I choose the positive. But then, I think of God as all positive and that's why I worship Him.

If we don't invade them they won't have to defend themselves now would they. I don't want to see more of our young soldiers needlessly killed. As for you, I think you should go join up right now; they've raised the enlistment age in the army to 42. You're already a truck driver so you're already trained pretty much to drive a truck over there and it'd only take a day to train on the humm-vee. They used to have the hum-vee instructions in comic book form so anybody could get it right.

Anyway, don't forget to call your congressmen and senators about that invitro bann. Let us know what they say. You might even give Sam Brownback a call and see what his response is. Ask him how many miscroscopic embryos he "killed" getting those three kids of his. Be sure and use the word "KILLED" too; you use it here when talking about this issue so use it with the big boys who've actually done it when you talk to them. umkay?

Edited July 22, 2006 by anti-hillbilly

[nebula]

Hey everybody -

This thread is about stem-cell research, not the war. Can we keep it on topic please?

****

As for stem-cells - there is no evidence that ebryonic stem-cells are beter than adult stem-cells. In fact, many advances have been made through adult stem-cell research.

This is one element that keeps getting left ot of the news reports, it seems. Bush is not against stem-cell research, only the use of embryos for such.

I was listening to Focus on the Family yesterday, and they mentioned the "snowflake children" - couples are beginniing to adopt the frozen embryos and making htem their own children.

This is a much, much better use of the frozen embryos!

[anti-hillbilly]

They accept G.E.D.s; they always have. I went thru basic during the 1970s and several people in my unit were under 18 and got in with a G.E.D. along with their parents signature. The Army is also getting less and less picky these days. What grade did you finish in high school if you don't mind my asking?

HA, HA, chickenhawks always have some health issue or other excuse that keeps them out of harms way; that's a given. I would have bet 100 bucks that you'd come back with a response like that.

Right positions:

Yes to invitro

Yes to embryonic stem-cell research

Yes to cloning body parts

The first one has already helped people to lead happier lives (they just need to stop being hypocrits about it and support the same for others). The other two show great potential in helping people to lead both healthier and happier lives. All three are right and are ethically humane.

[billie]

What if a person decides to have invitro and has adoptive parents for all their unused embryos? Wuold that still be wrong?

[Giaour]

Regardless of you views on the ethical uses of embryonic stem cell research, the point is that the government should NOT be funding it.

The government was set up to defend this country from enemies both foreign and domestic, it is not supposed to be involved in every aspect of our lives.

We will still have these things but they should be discovered in the private sector.

[nebula]

I think this got glossed-over, so I just wanted to say it again:

As for stem-cells - there is no evidence that ebryonic stem-cells are beter than adult stem-cells. In fact, many advances have been made through adult stem-cell research.

This is one element that keeps getting left ot of the news reports, it seems. Bush is not against stem-cell research, only the use of embryos for such.

I was listening to Focus on the Family yesterday, and they mentioned the "snowflake children" - couples are beginniing to adopt the frozen embryos and making htem their own children.

This is a much, much better use of the frozen embryos!

[billie]

I agree, Nebula!