Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Neubob on July 19, 2006, 01:33:54 PM
-
Once a supporter, albeit never a huge one, I am now officially a huge supporter of the end of his administration.
Stem cell veto (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13934199/)
I honestly think that this man may be getting dumber by the day. He should go back to the blow and booze. It may make all our lives a bit easier.
He can take his moral boundary and shove it as far as I'm concerned.
-
I can see no reason for the veto except to keep the religious right happy. It makes no logical sense otherwise. Unfortunately it looks like there will not be enough votes to override the veto.
-
What I don't get is.... why????
Idiot can't run again, so why not go out and do at least one thing right? Is he really a religious fanatic? I was convinced that he was doing it for the same reason that all politicians in high office do anything--to garner more votes. Apparently, that was a pipe dream.
-
Bush has recently said things like 'yo' and '****', and now he feels righteous to use his veto right, just because it's not proper to murder humans.. err.. I mean stem cells... ??
As if he doesn't have anything more important at his hands.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
What I don't get is.... why????
Is he really a religious fanatic? .
nope - unlike the other side- he just stands by his convictions
they knew he was going to veto it when they sent it up.. maybe the why?? belongs there ..
wtg Bush!
-
One more point for Idiot #1. Hurray the return to middle ages!
-
relax people , in 2 years hillary will ok the bill.
-
Good for him.
Maybe this marks the end of the Bush spending spree.
-
I thought his "call out" of the senate during his speech this afternoon was well done. Though from all of these responses, I can tell none of you caught it.
Basically he said that medical research is not worth corrupting human life by the trafficking of human fetuses.
He then went on to describe how the other stem cell research, that which is not derived or taken from the bodies of dead babies, was canned in Congress through basically a procedural veto.
So for some people, stem cell research doesn't mean anything unless you're killing babies to do it.
Maybe the democrats are trying to establish a stepping stone to make abortions more morally right.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I thought his "call out" of the senate during his speech this afternoon was well done. Though from all of these responses, I can tell none of you caught it.
Basically he said that medical research is not worth corrupting human life by the trafficking of human fetuses.
He then went on to describe how the other stem cell research, that which is not derived or taken from the bodies of dead babies, was canned in Congress through basically a procedural veto.
So for some people, stem cell research doesn't mean anything unless you're killing babies to do it.
Maybe the democrats are trying to establish a stepping stone to make abortions more morally right.
Well said.
-
I'm not a fan of our President. I'm with him on this one though.
hap
-
Anyone know how many times Bush has actually used his Veto power while in office?
He has threatened plenty but the last I remember hearing he hasnt used it once yet.
Bush Makes History. 5 years without saying "no" (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0816/p01s04-uspo.html)
In any event it doesnt really matter.
If it doesnt pass in this administration it is almost sure to the next.
Its comming, its just a matter of when
-
^
|
Yep
-
Originally posted by john9001
relax people , in 2 years hillary will ok the bill.
LOL, it would be worth 4 years of Hillary just to see the Lazs / Riptard / Eagler meltdown trifecta. I want to see how "American" they really are and how they stand behind Mrs. President.
-
I'm voting for Hillary. She might not be pretty, but since shes got something to prove, she'll put-out something fierce.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
I'm voting for Hillary. She might not be pretty, but since shes got something to prove, she'll put-out something fierce.
No way I could support Hillary.
I'd sooner vote Saddam for president.
Hillary woud be worse following bad
Or at least as bad
You think the country is in the toilet under Bush.
Under Hillary would flush it entirely
-
Why don't you like Hillary? The Republicans keeping raising the co-pays for VA hospitals, your going to be wishing her health-care system had been implemented when you get nickle and dimed to death.
-
He was a man of his word. He told everyone my veto pad is open and ready. They thought they would pressure him. Guess not
WTG BUSH!!!!:aok
-
Hillary? Yup, maybe....
If she's running against a Gay African-American Jew from China--and that's only if it's discovered that he's secretly a fanatic Muslim to boot.
Get real, people. This isn't the year 3000 yet.
As for Bush being a man of his word, I'm really happy for him. Too bad he gave his word to be an unequivical moron when it comes to stem-cell research.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Why don't you like Hillary? The Republicans keeping raising the co-pays for VA hospitals, your going to be wishing her health-care system had been implemented when you get nickle and dimed to death.
And you think Hillary is going to do something about it??
and who gets to pay for Hillarys health care system?
Wheres the money comming from
Not to mention she would have to get it passed frst
Which means even if she did have a good idea. Which I highly doubt.
It would be so watered down by politics that it would be hardly recognisable from what she put forth
Warning Now though.
Hillary Clinton is a Murphys law waiting to happen
-
Originally posted by Eagle Eye
He was a man of his word. He told everyone my veto pad is open and ready. They thought they would pressure him. Guess not
WTG BUSH!!!!:aok
Well I'll be damned.
Bush actually Vetoed something.
No matter. it will all be undone soon as he is out of office.
And anything really useful from the reasearch is years away.
We will just build on everyone elses research and experiance.
Its not like we're loosing anything.
This is only temporary.
And probably in the ends saves us money on research.
For the next few years anyway
-
Too bad he gave his word to be an unequivical moron when it comes to stem-cell research.
Moron? Did you even pay attention to what he said?
He is for stem cell research and supported a bill going through the houses. However, he is not for stem cell research when the stem cells are harvested from a fetus.
That's called morality and has nothing to do with intelligence.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Moron? Did you even pay attention to what he said?
He is for stem cell research and supported a bill going through the houses. However, he is not for stem cell research when the stem cells are harvested from a fetus.
That's called morality and has nothing to do with intelligence.
I understand, Sailor. I just think that it's immoral to deny medical developement because of 'human spare parts' that will not be used otherwise. The examples he cites of people adopting unwanted fetuses long before birth do not outweigh the potential benefits. If he wants to be moral, to a fault, he should look at what there is to gain for humans that are already born as well unborn, unconcieved humans of the future. His decision could well set back medical science by a decade or more. And that is the biggest immorality yet.
-
if this ever passes, abortion clinics will be like sperm banks where one will be paid for their deposit ...
neubob, why does this set anything back? you think the US is the only country that can do that research?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
if this ever passes, abortion clinics will be like sperm banks where one will be paid for their deposit ...
neubob, why does this set anything back? you think the US is the only country that can do that research?
No, the US is not the only one. It is, however, the wealthiest. The US is also home to some of the world's most famous and most productive centers for medical research--the NIH being one of them.
To keep places like the NIH, Johns Hopkins and hundreds of other facilities, hospitals and universities from working to their full potential sets back medical science--no two ways about it.
Before anyone even says it, no, I do not support research the likes of which was perpetrated by the Nazis. I do not enjoy the concept of partial birth abortions, or anything of the like... At the same time, I do not think that this even comes close. Bush is working off a largely unscientific definition of what life is and when consciousness begins, and I simply do not agree.
-
Shoot, humans cant form long term memories until they are at least 2 and a half years old. And thats bascially what consciousness is, comparing our surroundings to our long-term memories.
-
Hmmm.. then we should be able to abort everyone under two?
Neubob, you disagree with Bush. What makes your interpretation more valid than his?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Hmmm.. then we should be able to abort everyone under two?
Neubob, you disagree with Bush. What makes your interpretation more valid than his?
In my previous post I said that I was against partial birth abortions. I could be wrong, but I think that covers everything in the 3rd trimester. If the partial birth abortion is carried out, however, why not use it? Furthermore, if a 2nd trimester abortion is carried out, why not use that?
-
Hmmm.. then we should be able to abort everyone under two?
Now your thinking!
-
I think parents should be able to lawfully kill their own children up to the age of 18.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
if this ever passes, abortion clinics will be like sperm banks where one will be paid for their deposit ...
/B]
God how I love capitolism!
-
Originally posted by Neubob
In my previous post I said that I was against partial birth abortions. I could be wrong, but I think that covers everything in the 3rd trimester. If the partial birth abortion is carried out, however, why not use it? Furthermore, if a 2nd trimester abortion is carried out, why not use that?
A split reply; the first part was to Aqua, the second to you. I should have been more clear, sorry.
Anyway, you didn't answer my question.
Why would your view on this be any more or less valid than Bush's?
As for why not use it, I'd hazard a guess. Because of human nature, if there's money in something, you'll get more of it. There's money in stem cells... BIG money.
There was money in digging up cadavers and selling parts. Still is. In favor of that? Not like those parts are being used or anything.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I think parents should be able to lawfully kill their own children up to the age of 18.
hmm...that's legal here:)
-
If abortion is a murder then miscariage is a friking suicide :rofl
-
Originally posted by Toad
A split reply; the first part was to Aqua, the second to you. I should have been more clear, sorry.
Anyway, you didn't answer my question.
Why would your view on this be any more or less valid than Bush's?
Bush's view is that as a moral society, we should not be dissecting embryos for scientific research. To him, these are people--very very young people. Perhaps I am completely off base, but I do not consider an embryo a few days old to be a young human. It is an amalgamation of pre-differentiated cells that have all the potential of becoming a human.
On that same note, a young horny couple and the several hundred pounds of food it will take the female to reach 9 months is also a potential human. So--by that rationale, is every male who uses a condom guilty of pre-emptive murder by preventing conception? Of course not.
Now, Bush vetoes Embryonic Stem cell research, which covers embryos a few days old and older. When speaking of embyros 2 months old and older, I start to agree with the president. However, I simply cannot understand a sweeping veto that covers all like-minded research.
The reason is this: An embryo in its first stages of growth cannot feel pain, cannot breathe or think(no nervous system as of yet). It has not yet developed any of the various systems the define a living organism--much less a human. It is, for all intents and purposes, a drop of matter in a test-tube. A potential human, yes, but not a human by a long shot. As far as potential for learning about the physiology, it is extremely valuable. Again, we weight the benefits versus the drawbacks. In my mind, which I like to think of as more scientific than religion, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. The promise of medical breakthroughs for actual humans, not potential ones, is too great to toss away to a sweeping decision based on loosely-defined morality.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I think parents should be able to lawfully kill their own children up to the age of 18.
i think you need to raise that age limit.:lol
-
Originally posted by Neubob
The reason is this: An embryo in its first stages of growth cannot feel pain, cannot breathe or think(no nervous system as of yet). It has not yet developed any of the various systems the define a living organism--much less a human. It is, for all intents and purposes, a drop of matter in a test-tube. A potential human, yes, but not a human by a long shot. As far as potential for learning about the physiology, it is extremely valuable. Again, we weight the benefits versus the drawbacks. In my mind, which I like to think of as more scientific than religion, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. The promise of medical breakthroughs for actual humans, not potential ones, is too great to toss away to a sweeping decision based on loosely-defined morality.
This is simply a judgement call on your part. You make an assumption because no one... no one... knows for sure when human life begins.
We all pretty much agree on the extreme bookends; it can't begin before fertilization (sperm meets egg) and mostly all agree that it certainly begins after live birth (fetus exits the birth canal).
But in between? There are just assumptions, no irrefutable proof. That you choose your view over Bush's is fine. Just as he seems to choose his view over yours.
The big difference? He's in a position to veto such a bill and you are not.
That's all.
-
Bush's is the first administration to fund stem cell research.
In 2001, when he made his speech about his decision to fund research on a limited basis, he made his position clear.
The veto does nothing to prohibit privately funded SCR, and continues present federal funding.
-
but I do not consider an embryo a few days old to be a young human
well many of us do but given that argument, we aren't talking about embryos "a few days old" ... I didn't think anyone put a time stamp on the process but I guess the majority of the donors would not even have a clue that they are carrying around a 2 day old baby or is that a 2 day old pile of cash? Like Toad stated, you are talking BIG money. I hate to think of the revenue stream it would create for some "moms"..
Let the rest of the world have at it, I hope our country stays the course
-
Originally posted by Toad
The big difference? He's in a position to veto such a bill and you are not.
That's all.
Ain't that the truth....
And yes, Eagler, we are talking about embyos a couple days old, among others, of course. A key part of stem cell research involves researching pre-differentiated embyros--the stuff that comes before things like muscle and nervous tissue form from the initial fertilized ooze. Whatever. It's niether here nor there because I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who'd call me a murderer simply for masturbating into a tissue and tossing it into the toilet.
As for letting the rest of the world have it, I think it's more of a case of the rest of the world not having us. The US, as always, is in a position to be a leader. Without us, the world, out nation included, will pay for our moralistic stance with time, and everything that goes with it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
This is simply a judgement call on your part. You make an assumption because no one... no one... knows for sure when human life begins.
We all pretty much agree on the extreme bookends; it can't begin before fertilization (sperm meets egg) and mostly all agree that it certainly begins after live birth (fetus exits the birth canal).
But in between? There are just assumptions, no irrefutable proof. That you choose your view over Bush's is fine. Just as he seems to choose his view over yours.
The big difference? He's in a position to veto such a bill and you are not.
That's all.
Nice response, Toad:aok
While we can all be reasonably certain regarding POTUS' view on abortion, this issue is actually even more sticky. What we have to consider are the Laws of Unintended Consequences (2nd and 3rd Order Effects). With the potential for big payoffs, not only would the abortion clinics begin to reap financial profits based on the sale of stem cell specimen, but conceivably one could imagine a condition where pregnant women could be afraid to appear in public, lest someone violently ends their life for their stem cell specimen." Before you say "That would never happen..." it already does. How many people have died for their i-pod?! (or whatever the latest hot commodity happens to be)
-
As Holden pointed out, it isn't illegal here to perform such research. If it's such a huge potential benefit, one would think the private sector would be leaping on this one.
As Holden pointed out again, the Bush Admin was the first to Federally fund such research. That Bush wants limits on how the money is used doesn't change that fact.
The research is being done both here and in other countries. If anything comes of it, you can be sure it'll be marketed everywhere just like any other medical application. Coronary stents were developed here by Dotter; now they're everywhere.
-
My position remains firm on this one.
The president may not have illegalized the practice, but its limitation, in my mind remains unreasonable. Yes, Toad, I will acknowledge that, given a lack of any conclusive evidence, one opinion is as good as another. Bush is playing it safe, while I think it's worth the risk. Our opinions diverge. I care little for the potential profits from this research, I care only about the resources that will not be used to speed along the inevitable developments.
Nevertheless, I will say that something amazing has come of all this:
Up until this point, we've managed to discuss this matter with little to no insults and personal attacks. It may be a first in this little o'club, and I'm glad to be a part of it.
-
Well, in 2003 there were ~ 131,000,000 individual tax returns filed.
The Federal funding for SCR is ~$180 million.
So if just 50% of the taxpayers hold your view, you guys could all get together and chip in say $3 each and you could fund private SCR on any embryo you liked to the tune of nearly $200 million, more than the Federal amount.
And if you chipped in $10 each, well, you're looking at ~$650 million in any kind of research you feel is necessary.
And if you chipped in $100 each...oh, my! We're talking REAL MONEY now!
I'm happy with the present Federal guidlines.
You're not. But, as has been pointed out, private funding without limitations is not restricted whatsoever.
;)
-
BTW, I try real hard to avoid the insults/personal attack style.
I'm human, I'm know I've slipped up a few times but I do try.
And I see you do as well.
-
I just think that it's immoral to deny medical developement because of 'human spare parts' that will not be used otherwise.
No. This gives validity to an immoral action.
"No Sharon, there's nothing wrong with abortions. Plus the cells will get used for research!"
-
I think some are playing too much politics in this. This veto didn't stop any research what so ever. All it did was make certain kinds of stem cell research ineligable for federal funding.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No. This gives validity to an immoral action.
"No Sharon, there's nothing wrong with abortions. Plus the cells will get used for research!"
An immoral action... theres an immoral war going on with thousands of deaths every year! War based on immoral lies and motives!
Some stem cell research doesn't bother me much and it will be done in the future, in the US too. No reason to stubbornly stand in the way of a progress which is going to be reality sooner or later anyway. Stem cell research can save the lives of LIVING people.
-
Yes, it can save thousands of lives every year. But should it be done at the cost of millions more?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
if this ever passes, abortion clinics will be like sperm banks where one will be paid for their deposit ...
no.
from H. R. 810
(b) ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS.--Human embryonic stem cells
shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported
by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:
``(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos
that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were
created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in
excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such
treatment.
``(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and
through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treat-
ment, it was determined that the embryos would never be
implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
``(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated
the embryos with written informed consent and without
receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.
...
-
Originally posted by Me
if something can help me live a lot longer, or make me a lot of $$$, then it is not immoral.
-
I've never really understood the problem with this: as I understand it - if they don't do stem cell research, they just dump the embryos - the embryos "die" either way. If they do the stem cell research maybe people get cured.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I think parents should be able to lawfully kill their own children up to the age of 18.
hmm.. an 18,9 year window for abortion.. i like it :D
I would run over to my neighbour with a bottle of cognac and beg them to abort their boy before its too late.. He is a really annoying kid. Yesterday he held a Rock & RapRoll "festival" with his should-have-been aborted friends.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yes, it can save thousands of lives every year. But should it be done at the cost of millions more?
Those "millions" are going to die anyway, after dumping the embryos. I'd rather have those used to improve others lives than simply thrown away. Same end result, except the other option has an advantage.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
An immoral action... theres an immoral war going on with thousands of deaths every year! War based on immoral lies and motives!
Some stem cell research doesn't bother me much and it will be done in the future, in the US too. No reason to stubbornly stand in the way of a progress which is going to be reality sooner or later anyway. Stem cell research can save the lives of LIVING people.
i agree, It's just an old,dusted ideology puked over the centuries from the dark ages of catholic inquisition and accepted as a priciple in a modern society: stop the progress in the name of a misunderstood religious concept,
-
I think it is a non issue... I don't really care about stem cells all that much.
While they are alive I don't really consider them people with rights per se..
But..... If it is a moral problem for some or most... then why should they pay for it through their taxes?
You have no right to stem cell research... you have no right to make me pay to do any research.
There is no ban on the research... just a restriction on how much is paid out by our taxes... I have no problem with that given that it is repugnant to some who feel (with some justification) that human embreyos will be grown to feed the need for research.
There is no ban at all on private research.... Some states are funding it themselves. Many companies are. If it is that promising then private companies will step up the research.
It is like the endowment for the arts... The federal government does not keep art afloat. There is art without government.... government just mucks it all up and scews it.
Government artificialy props up things (with our money) that should not survive on their own merit.
Many of you are asking government to decide what research and development is worth doing.
Government meddling in solar panels (rebates) for instance has destroyed real development in the field. Why improve when the government will pay the same no matter what junk you throw on someones roof?
Look at the crap art they fund... Government is greedy,arrogant, stupid and corrupt and incapable of inovation.
I would have been just as happy the government gave back all the money they took from us on all stem cell research.
If government control is good..... Then why not let the socialist countries do the research?
lazs
-
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.
I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,
Because
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.:D
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Once a supporter, albeit never a huge one, I am now officially a huge supporter of the end of his administration.
Stem cell veto (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13934199/)
I honestly think that this man may be getting dumber by the day. He should go back to the blow and booze. It may make all our lives a bit easier.
He can take his moral boundary and shove it as far as I'm concerned.
Shrub is the moral ayatollah, don't ya know. The US Govt is a giant toilet, too bad our society is too apathetic, or pathetic, to flush all those morons.
Whats next?, murder charges for jerking off?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
But..... If it is a moral problem for some or most... then why should they pay for it through their taxes?
I'm not a fan of big government either, Lazs, but don't you think you're going a bit far with this? A concensus is a hard thing to come by these days, but that's one of the good things a governing body can do. I may be taking your statement to an absurd extreme, but if we were all left to make decisions in exactly how all our tax revenue is spent, what would happen? Where would our roads go? Our schools and hospitals and military? We'd definitely have no nuclear weapons or submarine fleet to speak of--what then? Or is there a cut-off where taxes become coluntary donations--and if so, where is this cut off and who do you appoint to determine it?
Small government would be nice. Anarchy, however, not so nice--don't you think?
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Shrub is the moral ayatollah, don't ya know. The US Govt is a giant toilet, too bad our society is too apathetic, or pathetic, to flush all those morons.
Whats next?, murder charges for jerking off?
this is only slightly related, but i'm working on a state ballot measure in favor of the death penalty for public flatulence
-
Furious, way to go trying to bring actual facts about the Bill into the discussion! You ruined the whole abortion for money argument that some people have going on here. That's just downright mean. :(
In all seriousness, the veto is nothing more than another attempt to "mobilize" the conservatives to vote Republican in the Congressional and Gubernatorial elections this fall. Same thing with all of the "American Values" bills Congress has been putting up here and there.
It's mobilizing this conservative alright. Mobilizing me to want to vote against every Republican I see on my fall ballot.
-
neubob... a case could be made that the constitution does provide for the government to protect us with a military. I see nothing in it that says the government should fund research. or.... endowment for the arts or whatever.
this is simply a matter where a lot of people find it repugnant. Why should such a thing be supported with tax money?
It would be a much different thing if we were talking about a ban.... we are not. We are talking merely of not funding the aspects that so many people find repugnant.
At a state level this is not the case..... In Kalifornia here we voted on investing in stem cell research and it was voted in. I voted against it but only because I think government allways wastes money and slows progress.
Solar is my example.... their rebate program is killing meaningful reseach. You only have to look at the old solar hot water heating rebate programs that were such a scam in the last "energy crisis"
you speak of nukes and hi tech weapons... I say that there is tremendous waste in such things but it is the price we have to pay since defence and weaponry are by their nature....loseres..
As for roads.... no...the government should not be involved except perhaps in a reglatory way. Think about it... do you think roads would not be built without the government?
schools... worse every decade under government control.... vouchers would give us all more for our money.
lazs
-
If stem cells are SOOO GREAT!!
THEN F this crap..private companies should foot the bill...
Why do you have to force folks to pay for EVERYTHING!!!
Trully GHEY
Good job georgie boy!!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
neubob... a case could be made that the constitution does provide for the government to protect us with a military. I see nothing in it that says the government should fund research. or.... endowment for the arts or whatever.
this is simply a matter where a lot of people find it repugnant. Why should such a thing be supported with tax money?
lazs
How much do 'we' pay to treat sick people (read medicare; disability) as it is? nobody has a right to medicare, or free health care.
When is thae last time you had polio?, never?.. thank tax $$ for that. Just try to figure out how much tax $$ has been saved since we no longer pay to treat this disease...
Stem cells could lead to cures / treatments for dozens of illnesses / diseases that cost tax payers billions as it is.
But if it's just about the $$, put a tax dollar value on repairing a paralyzed persons injury which not only allows them to live a normal productive life, but gets them off lifelong disability?
Naahh...screw the sick & injured, they have no right to anything. Come to think of it you have no right to a paved roads, traffic signals, flush toilets, or running water.. yet tax $$, every day, gets wasted on such trivial ammonites that nobody has a right to, but everyone enjoys.
It's a quality of life thing, we pay out the nose daily for them... the sick & injured pay taxes too..
Something tells me youd rather life in a disease filled banana republic.
-
marine..if its SO GREAT!!>.Why wouldn those money Hording Pharm compaines be jumping all over it?..
I have an idea..They like ..GOV TAKING YOUR MONEY ..AND GIVING IT TO THEM
Can you explain why theses comapines arent spending there own money to develop stem cells stuff?
-
Embryonic stem cell research is a long ways from cureing anything. Federal funding would possibly help speed the research up. This veto just means no government funding. Not that the reasearch cant be done. Nothing changed here.
Gonna get passed in a couple more years anyway.
-
xmarine... are you saying that the government cured polio? LOL.
medicare? of course we have a "right" to it since we are being forced to pay for it. I have private health insurance.... it is better.
They are not talking about that much money here tho on the stem cell thing... if you truely believe it is the wave of the future you are wellcome to invest in it. Kalifornia is spending billions and you can invest. There is no law against it.
What you want is to decide what is the best way for everyone to spend their money. You want a more powerful government and socialism while I want less of both.
If you lived out in the country and a guy came up and said... "Hi, I am one of your neighbors and we all got together and most of us decided that people round here will all go to church every sunday" You would say... great but.... no thanks. They would then say.... "you have no choice.. we have decided.. if you don't go we will come and drag you out of your house and lock you up in a basement for 5 years. If you try to resist we will probly kill you...oh... and this will all cost money.... you need to send us $50 a month to pay for it."
You would think you were on another planet but... that is socialism and perfectly logical if you believe in democracy and the good of the people justifying actions against individuals.
The government has no right to take my money for most of the things they do.... They have no right to protect me from my own actions either.
If stem cell research is worthwhile then a private company will develop it.
You can't in good concience ask people to fund something that is against their moral beliefes and does not insure the safety of the nation they inhabit from attack.
lazs
-
and xmarine.... How is it my responsibilty to take care of the sick and injured? It should be my choice. It is my responsibilty to not make people sick or injure them and that is it. If I do then government should be there to stop me.
You are acting like stem cells are the cure for everything and.... even more silly... that the only way they can ever be brought to us is if the feds take our money and "invest" it.
I guess living in a large city it does seem that the only way to survive is with a strong government regulating every little thing in ones life.
lazs
-
Damn straight. We shouldn't be using our tax dollars to help Americans.
We've got Iraqis to liberate and Israeli soldiers to support.
They should come first.
-
damn straight we shouldn't be using our tax dollars to help anyone.
We may invade another country if we feel it will in some way PROTECT us. That is governments job... not saying we are rigth or wrong on iraq but if we are right then we have a lot more constitutional right to be there than to come up with soicial security (good one there huh?) or..... stem cell research or even medicare.
How is forcing me to pay for government charity programs protecting my rights?
lazs
-
If that bill ever passes I am going to INVENT new ways to cheat on my taxes.
The moral issue is real for me. But research results using fetal stem cells have been abysmally bad, which should be apparent to anyone who investigated the issue to any great extent. Far more promising results have been achieved with the research into the use of adult stem cells and blood cord stem cells.
Cord blood cells in particular have been used to successfully treat 6,000 patients and 66 known diseases.
Fetal stem cells have proven to be wildly unpredictable, seldom producing the types of cell development the researchers desired, and have led to the development of numerous malignant cancers in the test animals.
History has shown that there is usually no lack of private funding for types of research that proves promising. In these cases, federal funding is seldom needed.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
If that bill ever passes I am going to INVENT new ways to cheat on my taxes....
there is a lot more & better competition is that sphere than in stem cell research.
best of luck & please report any discoveries
-
shukins... I don't share your morality on this probly but I understand it. I do not believe that I have the right to force you to pay for such research.
unlike the socialists here... I do not pretend to be the keeper of the morals or to know what is best for you and yours.
lazs
-
Be very very quiet. The socialists might hear you.
:noid
-
So sandie.... you believe that having government fund programs is not socialist or... what? Maybe you believe that the only way anything can get done is if we give money to the government for them to use to solve problems? Oh wait... that is socialism...
Nope. I don't want the government to solve any problems except military ones and to fund the court system. One group of federal marshalls is enough to replace the whole endless alphabet soup of federal "police".
I just want to start rolling their power back... you seem to be willing to increase it so long as it is something you deem worthy.
Problem is... whoever is in power has a whole new group of projects and programs (tax supprorted) that his supporters deem worthy (and that you may not)
end result... no matter who is in power... the government gains more in power every year and we lose ours.
Do you ever even consider rolling back their power when it is something you like?
Hell... I would like em to give money to Hot rod museums all over the country and a huge rebate on every speed part bought but I would never vote for it. silly example I know but sillier have been done to increase government power with the gleeful consent of the self serving and self rightious.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
So sandie.... you believe that having government fund programs is not socialist or... what? Maybe you believe that the only way anything can get done is if we give money to the government for them to use to solve problems? Oh wait... that is socialism...
So... how do you think these socialist programs manage to survive a Republican controlled House, Senate and Presidency?
Back on topic... What are the chances that the Gods of Irony will strike Dubya with Parkinson's disease. :rofl
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
Why do you have to force folks to pay for EVERYTHING!!!
Trully GHEY
Good job georgie boy!!
Did you know that you are funding millions of other useless things?
-
so mora...i should fund more stuff?..
great logic
How about we put in jail everyone who wastes tax money....
-
sandie.. I believe that Bush is a republican lite so far as welfare state goes... he is not a full blown democrat but allmost half as bad as that.
Given the alternatives... we had no choice. kerry and co would have continued the welfare state slide at an alarming rate... they would also have appointed liberal judges and continued and encouraged the anti gun nuts.
We had no choice...
I think it would be ironic and plausible that the government not getting "involved" in stem cell would make the private and state sector do that much better a job and "ironic" that something real come out of it.
It would also be "ironic" if government sponsored stem cell led to the same thing as government sponsored (rebates) solar hot water heaters of the 80's... every sleaze ball contractor who could throw up a system no matter how lousy.... mining the government for gold and all the rest of us being cheated out of real progress because the real research was not where the money was.
lazs
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
so mora...i should fund more stuff?..
I don't think that Gergie boy vetoed it to cut goverment spending.