Bush's 1st Veto

[jasonxctf]

could be against increasing federal spending for Stem Cell Research. This bill has passed the Republican Held House and is predicted to easily pass the Republican Held Senate.

 

Let's hope for 2/3rds passage.

 

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_4033656

[mr_genius]

if he does veto, it'll be an extremely short sighted/stupid move.

[southsideirish71]

could be against increasing federal spending for Stem Cell Research. This bill has passed the Republican Held House and is predicted to easily pass the Republican Held Senate.

 

Let's hope for 2/3rds passage.

 

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_4033656

 

 

My view is this. I am an organ donor, just like my wife is. Once you are dead, what they do with the organs doesnt really matter. If it can help someone, it would be the right thing to help that person. The same goes for stem cell research. I am not for abortion, but people are already aborting fetus's and the bodies are cast away, not buried as medical waste. I am not against using them for stem cell research and for a possible supply of stem cells later on. Some of my conservative legislators have a misguided view that this will start a run on abortions. That cause and effect is a weak link at best. As a diabetic the cure for my disease and a lot of other diseases probably lies within stem cell research. I hope for a cure, and we have seen some strides with Iclet cell replacement. I hope for the cure not just for myself, but for my son and future children. In my family the gene for diabetes is very very dominant. My grandfather, my mother, all 3 of her siblings, and at least 5 of my cousins all have diabetes. My mother watched her father die of complications when she was 10, I saw her pass away from complications a few years ago at 58. That is a strong link, and something that I am sad to say probably was passed on to my son. If this can help diabetics, and all sorts of other diseases then I am for it. Dying too soon when we have the technology to help fix this or in the future fix it, is stupid.

[Balta1701]

Irish, it's actually worse than that. There are literally hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos in this country that people have saved through fertility clinics which will never, ever be used for anything. Typically a few dozen embryos are created during ain vitro fertilization processes, and on average, about 3 of them are actually used.

 

The rest? They either are immediately discarded, or more commonly, they sit there taking up freezer space. There's never going to be anything close to enough demand for "Embryo adoption" or whatever you want to call it to satisfy the numbers that are created and stored during fertility procedures, so basically, these embryos sit in a freezer until they are discarded.

 

We're not talking, for the most part, about aborted fetuses, not making use of things that have begun to develop at all. We're literally talking about frozen clumps of cells which are totally unregulated, stored, and will eventually be discarded.

[Heads22]

He should veto bears. Damn Godless killing machines anyways.ssss

[southsideirish71]

He should veto bears. Damn Godless killing machines anyways.ssss

 

Thanks jackass, now there is water on my keyboard.

Edited July 11, 2006 by southsideirish71

[Heads22]

Thanks jackass, now there is water on my keyboard.

 

 

It's the painkillers that I just started for wisdom teeth. I'm on Combunox, which is the stuff Rush was hooked on. Now, he's roughly the size on an oxen, so I think it's a little a lot for me...but I'm currently feeling cautiously optomistic about life, ISU football and the issues with nuclear weapons and missiles in North Korea.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Irish, it's actually worse than that. There are literally hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos in this country that people have saved through fertility clinics which will never, ever be used for anything. Typically a few dozen embryos are created during ain vitro fertilization processes, and on average, about 3 of them are actually used.

 

The rest? They either are immediately discarded, or more commonly, they sit there taking up freezer space. There's never going to be anything close to enough demand for "Embryo adoption" or whatever you want to call it to satisfy the numbers that are created and stored during fertility procedures, so basically, these embryos sit in a freezer until they are discarded.

 

We're not talking, for the most part, about aborted fetuses, not making use of things that have begun to develop at all. We're literally talking about frozen clumps of cells which are totally unregulated, stored, and will eventually be discarded.

 

Surely somebody else appreciates the trifecta of irony (OK, actually hypocrisy) of the fact that so many of those frozen embryos are the results of nominal Christians who not only think 'following God's Will' means persuing near-superhuman efforts to conceive, but also insist on carrying all 6 or or however many of the implanted embryos to term regardless of health risks to the fetuses, and at teh same time will not give a second thought to the dozen or so fertilized embryos left sitting in a clinic freezer that WILL end up being discarded. That would mean these nominal Christians are the willful participants and driving motivator in the creation and eventual abortion (= MURDER if I've been following their argument right) of thousands of "sacred" human lives each year.

 

Go figure.

[Balta1701]

Surely somebody else appreciates the trifecta of irony (OK, actually hypocrisy) of the fact that so many of those frozen embryos are the results of nominal Christians who not only think 'following God's Will' means persuing near-superhuman efforts to conceive, but also insist on carrying all 6 or or however many of the implanted embryos to term regardless of health risks to the fetuses, and at teh same time will not give a second thought to the dozen or so fertilized embryos left sitting in a clinic freezer that WILL end up being discarded. That would mean these nominal Christians are the willful participants and driving motivator in the creation and eventual abortion (= MURDER if I've been following their argument right) of thousands of "sacred" human lives each year.

 

Go figure.

Man, Flaxx...it seems to me like you're really stretching to find hypocrisy there. Yeah, I'm sure there are fundamentalist christians who are using these facilities and at the same time opposing the research, but I don't see much use in pointing it out unless you can prove to me that a large majority are. Seems like you're straining to find a group of people to go after specifically.

 

I think it makes the point well enough to say that opposition to stem cell research for religious reasons not teamed with a desire to outlaw in vitro fertilization clinics that use current methods is quite hypocritical, whether or not people are making use of those services.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

could be against increasing federal spending for Stem Cell Research. This bill has passed the Republican Held House and is predicted to easily pass the Republican Held Senate.

 

Let's hope for 2/3rds passage.

 

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_4033656

 

 

^^

 

Im totally for stem cell research and I think Bush is wrong to oppose it.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I think it makes the point well enough to say that opposition to stem cell research for religious reasons not teamed with a desire to outlaw in vitro fertilization clinics that use current methods is quite hypocritical, whether or not people are making use of those services.

 

Yeah, it does, except that the Christian fertility clinic hypocrisy also exists completely separated from the stem cell issue. It's all about 'following God's Will' unless God's apparent Will is that a Christian couple not bear children. In that instance, God's Will is thrown out and the fertility clinic is enlisted and through frrtility drugs and sonic bombardment of the ovaries, etc., a massive amount of ova are harvested, artificially fertilized and implanted. Ah, the mysterious ways in which God's Will works.

 

Then, however, when doctors advise down the line that their assisted childbirth protocol urges the selective termination of several or the implanted embryos for the sake of the health ofthe eventual offspring and the mother, God's Will again comes up. This time, though, it's God's will to refuse the advice of the clinicians rather than exploiting their services as God conveniently Willed them to do a few months earlier. You can't "MURDER" any of the sacred implanted embryos, and it's better to risk the health and safety of six or seven of them than to ensure that one or two of them have the best chance at survival and healthy life.

 

And meanwhile, God's Will that the couple employ marvels of modern science to have a family rather than adopting has resulted in the creation of a bunch of excess fertilized embryos that do not meet Sacred muster and sit in a freezer unused until they are terminated.

 

God's Will is conveniently maleable to fit the needs of the couple.

 

And no, I don't suggest that Christian couples are making disoproportionate use of fertility clinics. It's just that they are the ones who will follow clinical protocol as far as implanting the embryos but not as far as selective reduction. Which means they are the couples on TV all the time having quintuplets and sextuplets and septuplets with all but guaranteed lifetime health issues. Because the lucky embryos that touched uterine tissue are, poof, all Sacred now, but the ones not eslected for implantation are not.

 

Christian indignation at the thought of using existing frozen embryos for stem cell research is merely another layer in a convoluted, hypocritical and convenient interpretation of what wits within God's Will and what does not.

[YASNY]

I suppose a Christian going to doctor to keep from dying of say ... pnuemonia ... is also a hypocritical twist of God's will. As was stated earlier, you are really stretching things to fit your own anti-Christian agenda.

[Balta1701]

I suppose a Christian going to doctor to keep from dying of say ... pnuemonia ... is also a hypocritical twist of God's will. As was stated earlier, you are really stretching things to fit your own anti-Christian agenda.

Only if they express concern over the diseases becoming resistant to antibiotics, because organisms do not evolve by natural selection, so that s*** ain't real.

[YASNY]

Only if they express concern over the diseases becoming resistant to antibiotics, because organisms do not evolve by natural selection, so that s*** ain't real.

 

What BS! .... No reasonable Christian denies that evolution occurs. Evolution is one tool God uses to allow adaptation for survival. I just don't believe we are derived from some rodent or marsupial that existed millions of years ago.

[Rex Kickass]

I suppose a Christian going to doctor to keep from dying of say ... pnuemonia ... is also a hypocritical twist of God's will. As was stated earlier, you are really stretching things to fit your own anti-Christian agenda.

 

No, I don't think that's where he's going with this. I think where he's going with it is that its hypocritical to oppose abortion (especially in its first trimester - pre-fetus stages) and support IVF where literally dozens of embryos are left to freeze, degrade and die - and not given a full chance at life.

 

Personally, I only support Embryonic Stem Cell Research because of the existence of IVF - which I think is at its core, personally selfish.

[CanOfCorn]

Personally, I only support Embryonic Stem Cell Research because of the existence of IVF - which I think is at its core, personally selfish.

 

I wouldn't say it's selfish. If there's a chance you can have a baby using the father's sperm and the mother's egg, I say go for it. I have a friend who did it and received two beautiful boys (there were 4, but was advised to selectively terminate 2 for health reasons).

 

Adoption is a wonderful thing. But, it comes with it's own problems. And I would say that everyone who wants children, if given the choice, would rather have their own.

 

Basically, just like anything, if IVF is used in good faith, it's not selfish. Are there side effects? Yes, but aren't there side effects of pretty much everything we do?

[YASNY]

No, I don't think that's where he's going with this. I think where he's going with it is that its hypocritical to oppose abortion (especially in its first trimester - pre-fetus stages) and support IVF where literally dozens of embryos are left to freeze, degrade and die - and not given a full chance at life.

 

Personally, I only support Embryonic Stem Cell Research because of the existence of IVF - which I think is at its core, personally selfish.

 

He was talking about a Christian's view of God's will and how they incorporate it into their lives. I gave an example correlation that can viewed as a Christian not accepting God's will.

[Rex Kickass]

I wouldn't say it's selfish. If there's a chance you can have a baby using the father's sperm and the mother's egg, I say go for it. I have a friend who did it and received two beautiful boys (there were 4, but was advised to selectively terminate 2 for health reasons).

 

Adoption is a wonderful thing. But, it comes with it's own problems. And I would say that everyone who wants children, if given the choice, would rather have their own.

 

Basically, just like anything, if IVF is used in good faith, it's not selfish. Are there side effects? Yes, but aren't there side effects of pretty much everything we do?

 

There are literally millions of children in need of care from responsible adults. I understand that its frustrating to not make your own children without help. But then again there are millions of children already here. Who need help now. And although I don't fault the desire for IVF, I just think that the kids here deserve a parent more than parents deserve kids from their own bodies. Ya know?

[CanOfCorn]

There are literally millions of children in need of care from responsible adults. I understand that its frustrating to not make your own children without help. But then again there are millions of children already here. Who need help now. And although I don't fault the desire for IVF, I just think that the kids here deserve a parent more than parents deserve kids from their own bodies. Ya know?

 

Interesting...I don't agree, but an interesting argument nonetheless.

[southsideirish71]

There are literally millions of children in need of care from responsible adults. I understand that its frustrating to not make your own children without help. But then again there are millions of children already here. Who need help now. And although I don't fault the desire for IVF, I just think that the kids here deserve a parent more than parents deserve kids from their own bodies. Ya know?

 

My wife and I had this discussion before we even got married. We had decided that if we couldnt have children of our own, we would adopt a child. That was just our personal views based on our faith. Now my brother and his wife are both going through fertility treatments right now to have a child. I told him of what happens, and asked him about adoption, but he wants one of his own. He is an adult and its really his decision. I will love my future neices/nephews that come out of that treatment. But I would also love any adopted children that they would have. Its a decision that each family has to make on their own. But as Rex and Jim have said before, there are some ethical issues with IVF that you have be made aware of.

[CanOfCorn]

My wife and I had this discussion before we even got married. We had decided that if we couldnt have children of our own, we would adopt a child. That was just our personal views based on our faith. Now my brother and his wife are both going through fertility treatments right now to have a child. I told him of what happens, and asked him about adoption, but he wants one of his own. He is an adult and its really his decision. I will love my future neices/nephews that come out of that treatment. But I would also love any adopted children that they would have. Its a decision that each family has to make on their own. But as Rex and Jim have said before, there are some ethical issues with IVF that you have be made aware of.

 

There are ethical issues to EITHER decision. That's the point. If I have cancer, why wouldn't I try everything I can to stay alive? Wouldn't it be God's will that I have cancer? I'm not trying to incite anything, but if there is a way to have children, why shouldn't I try it? And what's ethically wrong with it? I'm not hurting anyone, including the unfertilized eggs, because if my wife and I kept trying, nothing would happen.

 

I wonder if there is any research done on the amount of people that go through IVF, have children, and then end up adopting.

[southsider2k5]

Yeah, it does, except that the Christian fertility clinic hypocrisy also exists completely separated from the stem cell issue. It's all about 'following God's Will' unless God's apparent Will is that a Christian couple not bear children. In that instance, God's Will is thrown out and the fertility clinic is enlisted and through frrtility drugs and sonic bombardment of the ovaries, etc., a massive amount of ova are harvested, artificially fertilized and implanted. Ah, the mysterious ways in which God's Will works.

 

Then, however, when doctors advise down the line that their assisted childbirth protocol urges the selective termination of several or the implanted embryos for the sake of the health ofthe eventual offspring and the mother, God's Will again comes up. This time, though, it's God's will to refuse the advice of the clinicians rather than exploiting their services as God conveniently Willed them to do a few months earlier. You can't "MURDER" any of the sacred implanted embryos, and it's better to risk the health and safety of six or seven of them than to ensure that one or two of them have the best chance at survival and healthy life.

 

And meanwhile, God's Will that the couple employ marvels of modern science to have a family rather than adopting has resulted in the creation of a bunch of excess fertilized embryos that do not meet Sacred muster and sit in a freezer unused until they are terminated.

 

God's Will is conveniently maleable to fit the needs of the couple.

 

And no, I don't suggest that Christian couples are making disoproportionate use of fertility clinics. It's just that they are the ones who will follow clinical protocol as far as implanting the embryos but not as far as selective reduction. Which means they are the couples on TV all the time having quintuplets and sextuplets and septuplets with all but guaranteed lifetime health issues. Because the lucky embryos that touched uterine tissue are, poof, all Sacred now, but the ones not eslected for implantation are not.

 

Christian indignation at the thought of using existing frozen embryos for stem cell research is merely another layer in a convoluted, hypocritical and convenient interpretation of what wits within God's Will and what does not.

 

I would have to say that life vs taking of the life is the big picture in the arguement there. I don't know about the whole God's will thing, because I don't know what to think of predestination and other ickey arguements like that, but I think giving life vs taking life is the important thing there.

[Rex Kickass]

There are ethical issues to EITHER decision. That's the point. If I have cancer, why wouldn't I try everything I can to stay alive? Wouldn't it be God's will that I have cancer? I'm not trying to incite anything, but if there is a way to have children, why shouldn't I try it? And what's ethically wrong with it? I'm not hurting anyone, including the unfertilized eggs, because if my wife and I kept trying, nothing would happen.

 

I wonder if there is any research done on the amount of people that go through IVF, have children, and then end up adopting.

 

I don't fault anyone for deciding that IVF is the right thing for them to do. Although I disagree with it - and have some ethical concerns with it, I respect their choice.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I suppose a Christian going to doctor to keep from dying of say ... pnuemonia ... is also a hypocritical twist of God's will. As was stated earlier, you are really stretching things to fit your own anti-Christian agenda.

Please look at the substance of my post, and don't just fal back on a pre-conceived perception that I'm anti-Christian. I am a non-Christian, and I am against any one religious viewpoint holding sway over all others to the point of subjugation, and that is it in a nutshell.

 

As for the proposed analogous situation - employing modern medicine to combat pneumonia - it is only analogous if somewhere along the line you intentionally fertilize a half-dozen ova and selfishly decide to gestate them all within a single uterus while silmultaneoulsly fertilizing a half-dozen more that you know are going to be destroyed ('MURDERED') down the road.

 

No embryos were murdered when you got your hypothetical pneumonia treatmet, or me my flu shots. But despite the standard protestations of the 'once it's fertilized it's life' crowd, embryo murder is apparently just fine and dandy if it's a mere side effect of fertility clinic protocol.

 

I mean, isn't that the whole beef with contemporaray stem cell research -- that incipient human lives are destroyed in the process? How is the destruction of the same human lives after in vitro (e.g., when a clinic freezer is cleared out) so above reproach to amany of the same people (not necessarily you) that would condemn research that could save and improve untold of actual living and breathing human beings?

[YASNY]

Please look at the substance of my post, and don't just fal back on a pre-conceived perception that I'm anti-Christian. I am a non-Christian, and I am against any one religious viewpoint holding sway over all others to the point of subjugation, and that is it in a nutshell.

 

As for the proposed analogous situation - employing modern medicine to combat pneumonia - it is only analogous if somewhere along the line you intentionally fertilize a half-dozen ova and selfishly decide to gestate them all within a single uterus while silmultaneoulsly fertilizing a half-dozen more that you know are going to be destroyed ('MURDERED') down the road.

 

No embryos were murdered when you got your hypothetical pneumonia treatmet, or me my flu shots. But despite the standard protestations of the 'once it's fertilized it's life' crowd, embryo murder is apparently just fine and dandy if it's a mere side effect of fertility clinic protocol.

 

I mean, isn't that the whole beef with contemporaray stem cell research -- that incipient human lives are destroyed in the process? How is the destruction of the same human lives after in vitro (e.g., when a clinic freezer is cleared out) so above reproach to amany of the same people (not necessarily you) that would condemn research that could save and improve untold of actual living and breathing human beings?

 

 

When you threw "God's will" into the equation, you made it analogous. I'm not arguing the rights or wrongs of the fertilized ova.