Who the hell is Stem Cell Bill anyway???
Stem Cell Bill
- Thread starter Transcend
- Start date
Old Man G Funk said:
Pffft....
It wasn't like Bush flip-flopped on this.. he said long ago it would be vetoed and it was. No one should be the least bit shocked.
so he isn't any smarter now than he was then.
we're allowed to be angry/outraged though, right?
we're allowed to be angry/outraged though, right?
Because not flip-flopping is more important than correcting mistakes.N8 said:Pffft....
It wasn't like Bush flip-flopped on this.. he said long ago it would be vetoed and it was. No one should be the least bit shocked.
Old Man G Funk said:
Sorry, I don't see this veto as a mistake.
Of course not.....cause nothing ever comes from people actually doing research....N8 said:
Good thing Hope is an unknown quantity, otherwise people might actually just give up....
I cant beleive you guys want to do cruel experiments on little babies. :nonono:
BurlyShirley said:
Yes. Live children with fully formed limbs and personalities and skin.
Only after they learn to say "mamma" though.
So, when Bush said that we had about 80 lines of stem cells for researchers to use, but it really turned out to be about 11 and most of those were inadequate and degenerating, he didn't make a mistake? Actually, you're probably right. He probably lied deliberately.N8 said:
We can do it on Japanese children. Every good Christian knows that Japanese people don't have souls...kidwoo said:
For kristsakes!!! The veto didn't ban stem cell research...
There is already gov approved research being done and will continue to do so. This veto was for the expansion of federal funding...
There is already gov approved research being done and will continue to do so. This veto was for the expansion of federal funding...
Old Man G Funk said:
You mean 22..?
The veto didn't ban stem cell research, but it only allows it on the stem cells that Bush allowed back in 2001, which I just said have proven to be inadequate to the task.N8 said:For kristsakes!!! The veto didn't ban stem cell research...
There is already gov approved research being done and will continue to do so. This veto was for the expansion of federal funding...
But, hey, if you'd rather throw embryos in the trash than use them to maybe save lives....
Yes, 22, but some of those are basically useless. I thought I read somewhere that there were really only 11 that were still useful, but I can't back that up.N8 said:
Either way, the 22 that we have is not enough.
Seriously though, what else could Bush have done? Im guessing he made a promise to his voters that he'd be against abortion. It wouldnt make much sense for him to support something like this. I mean, if he did, then you'd be all over him for being inconsistent. Its a no-win situation.
Old Man G Funk said:
How do you know? You an expert?
Exactly.. except Bush wins by doing what he says he'll do, and not compromising his principles.BurlyShirley said:
plus, god told him he was right. again.N8 said:
narlus said:
I don't think so... he just sticks to his convictions...
did he pray on it?
be honest.
be honest.
narlus said:
Does that make anything wrong?
By not outlawing IVF in the first place, he's allowing a holocaust to happen so that Suzy Homemaker can have triplets.BurlyShirley said:
That's a hell of a principle to uphold...
Silver said:
Yup yup
It's NOT ABOUT EMBRYOS OR "ABORTION" SHIRLEY
All the federally funded stem cell research in the country wouldn't account for half the number of much more developed fetuseseseses thrown in the trash from botched IVFs.
BS: the irony of your inconsistency claim is absurd.
Quit taking my explanations as "MY" argument. I understand fully (or as much as the next guy who has half paid attention) how useful stemcell research can/could be. Im all for it. Im just saying that it's not consistent with his "moral" platform and there's no way to win.kidwoo said:
The IVF argument isnt necessarily a slam dunk becuase you have to examin who you're talking to, and what they're more concerned with is purpose than practicality. Or rather, that "creating" babies is different than experimenting on them.
Fair enough but there's still a contradiction there that I have a problem with and you repeating it adds your voice to the argument.BurlyShirley said:
No one is experimenting on babies. Stem cell bundles are about as complex as some of the things I shoot out of my nose. And IVF trials have a failure rate too and are in a sense a trial or "experiment".BurlyShirley said:
But you are right, audience is important. To me helping an existing human with a history, a personality and family is a far more noble cause than using the same resources to make a theoretical person.
Are you patronizing me or do you think I really think of them as babies?kidwoo said:
BurlyShirley said:
I thought you were joking but you keep saying it in the midst of defending yourself and your explanations.
But even making fun of that in your word choice makes is sound like you for some reason understand the BS argument that gets made for the opposition. There's nothing to understand. It's ignorance. I'm well aware that you know that so cut it out.
I dont think it's simple ignorance tho. I mean, I think most people understand some embryos die in trying to fertilize lesbians, but that's an acceptable loss because you're trying to create life. I think they see it differently when you're experimenting on, or otherwise culturing them to save the lives of another person. I think they see it as organ stealing or something. And, in a sense, that's essentially what it is. Though I have no issue with that. The debate still comes back to what is or is not a person.kidwoo said:I thought you were joking but you keep saying it in the midst of defending yourself and your explanations.
But even making fun of that in your word choice makes is sound like you for some reason understand the BS argument that gets made for the opposition. There's nothing to understand. It's ignorance. I'm well aware that you know that so cut it out.
That's downright quotable.BurlyShirley said:
I don't think that even a newborn is a person (yet). I'd be hardpressed to rip one apart but that's still very very far from what actually occurs in stem cell harvesting. Correct me if I'm wrong but we're talking about a bundle of cells on the scale of hundreds no?
I'd like to see that bundle grow a moustache and drive a corvette.
Seriously though, without jesus how many people would be "morally" opposed to this when straight up embryos get sacrificed for IVF?
Jesus makes everything bad.
If we want to use pure technocratic determinism in medicine et al...it will have to wait until this president leaves...or there is proof during his reign that an omnipotent clone army (has been/can be) made by China or someone else...belligerence and truculence before death and dishonour...even if it is not facilitated by what the true son of the omnipotent said.
just yr statement that god didn't tell him.N8 said:
Who the hell would you people argue with if I didnt?spincrazy said:
No, I just read what the experts actually say instead of getting my science from policy wonks. Duh.N8 said:
Abortion and using the stem cells of discarded embryos are 2 completely separate things. Linking the two is equivocating two unequal things.BurlyShirley said: