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

[Scarletprayers]

Nope, and you didn't answer mine.

Do I think he had more than one reason for doing it, of course I do. He is a poltician. Do I also consider the possiblity he may have vetoed this bill because he didn't believe in it, yes I can.

By the way.....................whats an "anti-hillbilly" ?

[anti-hillbilly]

I wonder how many microscopic embryos President Bush and First Lady Laura destroyed while trying to get pregnant with their twins??? He doesn't care about life, before or after birth as far as I can tell. The only reason he vetoed this bill was to appease the misguided zealots who make up his base....... and everybody with any sense knows it.

[link]

Anyone with any sense knows the only reason Democrats keep fighting for the government to use our tax money to pay for the destruction of life to supposedly, maybe, some day in the future find a cure for some type of ailments is because they are trying to appease the misguided anti-life zealots in their base and to try to get a few votes here and there. Once again I ask the question, why should the government pay for such research over research into heart disease or cancer treatments considering more people are effected. If Democrats really are concerned with saving lives, why not use tax money to support research in areas such as these where their wouldn't be the controversy?

The government should pay for it because it's the right thing to do. Using 300 billion taxpayer dollars to fund a war with Iraq that we shouldn't be in is the wrong thing to do.

I'm pro-life; I belief that is a concept that applies to the born as well as the pre-born. These microscopic embryos are not people yet nor should they be in the same category as those growing in the womb or those who have diseases and afflictions that need correcting. Evidently the republicans don't see these embryos as being on the same footing either. Sam Brownback was touting his three invitro children while this debate was going on. How many of these microscopic embryos did he flush in the process? Probably 40-60; the same with the President and First Lady.

If the republicans viewed these embryos as being fully human then they wouldn't be messing around with this bill; they'd introduce one that bans all invitro fertilization. That'll never happen because they're hypocrits and they also know too many of their zealous base needs invitro to get pregnant when God gives them a barren womb. It's one of those, "do as I say, not as I do" type of things.

[Giaour]

It's a waste of money.

NO positive results have come from testing embryos, NONE>

Testing will continue privately, but keep MY money out of a useless experiment.

Test adult stem cells, atleast they produce help.

[anti-hillbilly]

Nope, and you didn't answer mine.

Yes I did; post #11.

Do I think he had more than one reason for doing it, of course I do. He is a poltician. Do I also consider the possiblity he may have vetoed this bill because he didn't believe in it, yes I can.

If he doesn't believe "in it" then he and his wife shouldn't have gotten doctors to "create life, only to destroy life" (as they refer to it) in a petrie dish themselves.... because that's what happens with invitro fertilization. On average 24 embryos are created and you're lucky if you get one, maybe two babies from it. All 24 normally wouldn't "take" anyway but most are just destroyed because people don't want 10 or 15 babies they only want one or two. I'm all for people being able to do this to get pregnant but I don't think they should get on their high horses and talk like they've gotten some blessing from God (who made them barren in the first place) then turn around and comdemn researchers, and their supporters, who want to use their "leftovers" to find a "blessed cure" for other people and other people's kids. Those double standards really tick me off especially when I can guarantee you that if cures are found in the future these same people will get them as needed along with everybody who did support the research.

By the way.....................whats an "anti-hillbilly" ?

I'm a hillbilly that doesn't like GWB anymore and someone on another forum called me an anti-christ for that view. Then another poster said they'd never heard of a hillbilly that didn't like Dubya and did that make me an anti-hillbilly (making a joke because of the anti-christ remark). SOooo, it's a joke not a jab.

NO positive results have come from testing embryos, NONE>

That's because research takes time and money and this has only been around since, I think, 1998.

Testing will continue privately, but keep MY money out of a useless experiment.

Remember you've said that. Someday if you or one of your children gets a disease that they've found a cure for using this type of research then you can stick to your guns and refuse it.

Butero - We've been round and round on this issue. I could give you a hundred reasons and your response would still be the same, "You haven't given me one good reason". It wouldn't matter to you if the govt did earmark the money specifically for the American cancer, heart, diabetes, parkinsons, aids, paralyzed people associations... you'd still be against it especially if they wanted to use those doomed embryonic dots. -- Personally I think that wasted 300 billion for Iraq would have went a long way toward finding some cures or just being used to treat these diseases and injuries but of course the more militant among us don't believe in good health or good health care as much as they believe in the business of war.

Edited July 22, 2006 by anti-hillbilly

[anti-hillbilly]

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.)

[anti-hillbilly]

Anti-Hillbilly. You said you think we wasted 300 billion dollars in Iraq, yet in another thread you also said you think the U.S. caused the problems in Iran so we should let them alone to develope nuclear weapons. You said they are a sovereign nation so they have a right to do so. You said it would help them to protect themselves from our government. Considering your radical and dangerous views in areas like this, I hardly find you credible when you criticize the money spent on the war in Iraq.

That's it, attack my credibility because you know you're wrong about THIS subject. Why does that not surprise me. -- What I said on the other thread about Iran was true and verifiable. [link] [link] [link] I guess some people have a problem with the awful truth. Anyway our military is stretched thin in Iraq it wouldn't be in our best interest to engage in another conflict.

I find nothing you say to be credible because you're too authoritarian and tyrannical.

So ignore me and I'll ignore you.

Now let's stick to the topic of THIS thread.

Edited July 22, 2006 by anti-hillbilly

[Giaour]

private research is still going on.

Why should the govt fund it?

[anti-hillbilly]

private research is still going on.

Why should the govt fund it?

To speed it up and have more oversight. I pay taxes and I'd prefer my tax dollars be spent on this as opposed to other things my tax dollars get spent on like foreign aid and faith based iniatives. Tax dollars get spent on lots of things why not spend it where it'll do the most good for the most people.

Edited July 22, 2006 by anti-hillbilly

[Giaour]

oversite?

You mean more govt control?

no thanks.

Well, I'd prefer my taxes NOT pay for condoms in prison, abortions, and 500 dollar toilets.

Guess we cant all get what we want.

[anti-hillbilly]

oversite?

You mean more govt control?

no thanks.

Well, I'd prefer my taxes NOT pay for condoms in prison, abortions, and 500 dollar toilets.

Guess we cant all get what we want.

Over 50% of our tax dollars goes toward the military industrial complex; yet when our soldiers get in the field their parents have to try and buy them proper protective gear. (But Rumsfeld says you go to war with what you got). Toilet seats don't cost 500 dollars unless the crooked corporate contractor providing them runs up the price.

Somebody is getting filthy rich and we the people, who are footing the bill, are getting very little bang for our buck.

This type of research might benefit YOU or someone you love some day. It's not always the other guy, or the other guy's kid that gets horribly sick or maimed, sometimes it happens to you. Think about it.