POL - "Throw them in the Trash instead!"

[Flasch186]

support from both sides of the aisle and Most americans...TOO bad. Toss 'em Bush says...

this is one that I think the Admin. is wrong on.




Bush threatens veto on stem cell research bill

Friday, May 20, 2005 Posted: 3:32 PM EDT (1932 GMT)


(CNN) -- President Bush on Friday threatened to veto a bill expanding public funding for embryonic stem cell research that could make it to his desk by early next week.

"I made [it] very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life, I'm against that," Bush told reporters. "Therefore if the bill does that, I will veto it."

It would mark the first veto of Bush's presidency.

Supporters of the bill dispute Bush's depiction of the research, saying it's critical to advance scientific discoveries that may help cure diseases.

The bill would broaden the limits on funding embryonic stem cell research beyond the strict rules the president outlined four years ago.

Bush limited funding for research on human embryonic stem cells to cell lines already in existence at that time.

Bush aides have said they're concerned the measure still may pass the GOP-led Congress by a veto-proof margin. They're working to convince enough Republicans to support the president.

In the House of Representatives, 290 votes are needed to override a veto.

Republican congressional leaders have told GOP lawmakers to consider the legislation a "vote of conscience" -- meaning they are not pressuring members to vote any particular way.

The House could take action next week on the legislation.

The bill -- backed by Reps. Mike Castle, R-Delaware, and Diana DeGette, D-Colorado -- would lift that restriction. The bill has about 200 co-sponsors.

The scientific community complains many of those stem cell lines are contaminated and could not be used for research. A study published in January in the journal Nature Medicine said all those lines are contaminated.

Some Republicans have called on the president to alter his stance, including former first lady Nancy Reagan. Her husband's long battle with Alzheimer's disease helped draw attention to the issue.

The disagreement highlights a fissure in the Republican Party, with Bush siding with the Catholic Church and social conservatives against the GOP's more moderate voices.

White House officials said they may try to recruit first lady Laura Bush as a spokeswoman. Mrs. Bush, the daughter of an Alzheimer's sufferer, spoke out on the matter during the 2004 re-election campaign.

Officials said the administration will stress that the president is not opposed to stem cell research but remains concerned about how how taxpayer dollars are spent.

Officials said the administration also is considering stepping up focus on less controversial stem cell research, such as that focusing on blood from umbilical cords of newborns.

President Bush said Friday he is a "strong supporter of adult stem cell research."

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

"I made [it] very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life, I'm against that," Bush told reporters.

If only he supported expanding federal funding for grammar research.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

If only he supported expanding federal funding for grammar research.

LOL, im not one to point out someone's grammatical errors....lest I be blasted on each post more than i already am.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This is, FTR, one that I disagree with him on too.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

This is, FTR, one that I disagree with him on too.

I just fell over dead.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I just fell over dead.

In that case, could we borrow some stem cells?

[ice4277]

This is one issue in which I am kind of straddling the fence. I can see both sides of the argument, and think they both have valid points. I would personally not want to be put in the position to make a decision on this.

[MrBug708]

I also agree with SCR, but am bitterly opposed to cloning. You agree to the first and it all but opens up Pandora's box for the second.

[miked]

It sucks. I work in health care doing research on heart failure. Most of the cells that are available are contaminated or there's too much red tape. It's sort of sad, too, because other countries are moving light years past us in this area of research. Stem cells won't be the answer to alot of diseases, but studying them is one of the most valuable tools in science.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

This is, FTR, one that I disagree with him on too.

But Jon, this is exactly why you need to reconsider your blanket condemnation of all possible liberal contamination to our country: if it weren't for a strain of thought you'd like to see eliminated, your only chance for achieving aims you would support would be eliminated as well.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Officials said the administration also is considering stepping up focus on less controversial stem cell research, such as that focusing on blood from umbilical cords of newborns.

President Bush said Friday he is a "strong supporter of adult stem cell research."

This all sounds reasonable to me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

But Jon, this is exactly why you need to reconsider your blanket condemnation of all possible liberal contamination to our country: if it weren't for a strain of thought you'd like to see eliminated, your only chance for achieving aims you would support would be eliminated as well.

Actually, it's a cost/benefit analysis problem. And the benefits don't come near balancing the costs.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I also agree with SCR, but am bitterly opposed to cloning. You agree to the first and it all but opens up Pandora's box for the second.

No, it doesn't have to open up the door to cloning. SCR may not be a panacea for all illnesses, but it could significantly improve our ability to defeat several serious diseases. I'm very much Pro-Life, but given that abortion is legal, I think it is asinine not to further SCR.

[MrBug708]

I'm not saying it will mean we'll start look at cloning, but all of the information will be readily available and more then opne person will start diving into the cloning research field. It doesn't have to open the door, but I dont think your naive enough to think that it will stop at SCR

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by miked

...because other countries are moving light years past us in this area of research.

Will those coutries not share medical research information with us?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Will those coutries not share medical research information with us?

They'll sell it to us, as their health care systems lap us again. But we wouldn't be able to use it anyway if it had anything to do with stem cells.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by miked

It sucks. I work in health care doing research on heart failure. Most of the cells that are available are contaminated or there's too much red tape. It's sort of sad, too, because other countries are moving light years past us in this area of research. Stem cells won't be the answer to alot of diseases, but studying them is one of the most valuable tools in science.

Aren't we still doing all kinds of stem cell research in this country? Just because there is a tight limit on government funding for research doesn't mean that private research isn't being done.

[Arles]

I'm on the fence here too. There's nothing stopping private funding from going into stem cell research, so I don't know that it's as dire as some make it sound if the government doesn't fund it. Still, I tend to lean with science on most issues and would probably vote for it if I was pushed. I just don't like the slippery slope we could be heading down where we eventually use federal funding to farm out organs and other "medicines". But, my hope is that we can put on the breaks once it reaches that point (famous last words, I know).

[st.cronin]

I think the ethical issues here are totally overblown. Basically, people are opposed to stem cell research because it offends them. The 'slippery slope' argument is totally bogus here - it's primarily abortion which puts people on the wrong side of this argument, not cloning, and this is not the right place for that (abortion or cloning) fight.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

"I made [it] very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life, I'm against that," Bush told reporters. "Therefore if the bill does that, I will veto it."

I didn't think of this, but read it somewhere: does this quote mean that Bush is against military research as well? The purpose of us going into Iraq was to destroy life in order to save it. It's obvious that Bush doesn't really feel this way, so what is the real issue, and why can't he say what it really is?

[miked]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Aren't we still doing all kinds of stem cell research in this country? Just because there is a tight limit on government funding for research doesn't mean that private research isn't being done.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think even private companies still need to go through the government. Private drug companies don't have their own stocks of stem cells, there are a few "universal" sources that require lots of work to get. At least that's what I was told at a talk once.

The countires will share their research (as most research is published in articles) but we can't confirm, test, whatever.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I didn't think of this, but read it somewhere: does this quote mean that Bush is against military research as well? The purpose of us going into Iraq was to destroy life in order to save it. It's obvious that Bush doesn't really feel this way, so what is the real issue, and why can't he say what it really is?

You're joking, right? You can't see the obvious differences between military technology and one that uses aborted fetuses for a potentially lucrative medical cure that might encourage abortions that wouldn't otherwise happen? What, you want the 15 minute speech where Bush defines the nuances? Nice cheapshot there.

You may well disagree on the abortion issue aspects of this (I'm not 100% sure I agree with Bush on this part myself, although I do see the point), and that's fine, but to try and say Bush is being a hypocrite by comparing this to miltary spending is really digging.

And before you ask: military technology is used for the most part on people who have a choice in the matter. And before you go off on civilian deaths, I'll point out that massive amounts of money is being spent attempting to reduce those and avoid them altogether if possible. The vast majority of civilian deaths in Iraq are coming from the other side, not us. We've been involved in some pretty major fighting over the last decade or two where the civilian death toll (and to a certain extent even the military death toll) has been much lower than in past wars.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

This all sounds reasonable to me.

I agree. When our children were born we TRIED to donate the umbilical cords but couldn't find any takers unless we paid $500.

Though I am on the fence on this one as well, I think we should do our due diligence to see if there are any alternatives to using aborted fetuses. If Bush is against abortion, I don't see how he can be for stem cell research that utilizes the aborted fetus. It's almost like a person who's against the annual baby seal slaughter coming upon a number of dead seals and deciding to sell their skins for profit.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

It's almost like a person who's against the annual baby seal slaughter coming upon a number of dead seals and deciding to sell their skins for profit.

No, it's more like the Prime Minister of Canada outlawing the selling of seal skins after he had no success at banning seal hunting.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I agree. When our children were born we TRIED to donate the umbilical cords but couldn't find any takers unless we paid $500.

Though I am on the fence on this one as well, I think we should do our due diligence to see if there are any alternatives to using aborted fetuses. If Bush is against abortion, I don't see how he can be for stem cell research that utilizes the aborted fetus. It's almost like a person who's against the annual baby seal slaughter coming upon a number of dead seals and deciding to sell their skins for profit.

Most stem cell lines come from unused embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics. Abortion isn't really the major issue here unless you believe using those embroys (which would be destroyed anyway) is abortion.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

You're joking, right? You can't see the obvious differences between military technology and one that uses aborted fetuses for a potentially lucrative medical cure that might encourage abortions that wouldn't otherwise happen? What, you want the 15 minute speech where Bush defines the nuances? Nice cheapshot there.

Are you denying that military technology kills with the purpose of preserving life? That's all I said, that the reason Bush gave is B.S. But you decided to set up the straw man that I said that they were equivalent, and good job knocking that straw man down. But you ignored my point.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Are you denying that military technology kills with the purpose of preserving life? That's all I said, that the reason Bush gave is B.S. But you decided to set up the straw man that I said that they were equivalent, and good job knocking that straw man down. But you ignored my point.

Wait a second, did you even read your quote? You're the one who said that Bush making this argument must mean he's against military spending as well. I'm not the one who drew the equivalence, I'm the one who thinks it's absolutely ridiculous that anyone would.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Wait a second, did you even read your quote? You're the one who said that Bush making this argument must mean he's against military spending as well. I'm not the one who drew the equivalence, I'm the one who thinks it's absolutely ridiculous that anyone would.

Again with the straw man. Try to set that aside for a second and actually debate the point that I made, that his quote is a red herring. The way you do this is to either debate that the military kills in order to save life or concede that what Bush said is not his true reason for opposing stem cell research (or Bush could also be an idiot, but I'll give him more credit and I'd expect you to do the same).

Here, I'll draw it up logically for you:

Premises:
1. Bush says he is against all X.
2. Y is X.

Logical conclusion:
Bush is against Y.

But Bush is obviously not against Y. So one of the premises must be wrong.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Again with the straw man. Try to set that aside for a second and actually debate the point that I made, that his quote is a red herring. The way you do this is to either debate that the military kills in order to save life or concede that what Bush said is not his true reason for opposing stem cell research (or Bush could also be an idiot, but I'll give him more credit and I'd expect you to do the same).

Here, I'll draw it up logically for you:

Premises:
1. Bush says he is against all X.
2. Y is X.

Logical conclusion:
Bush is against Y.

But Bush is obviously not against Y. So one of the premises must be wrong.

And I thought I went to great lengths to explain the difference, why this quote was still appropriate to the situation at hand, and how the media got the sound bite they wanted instead of a long-winded explanation trying to explain the subtleties to a public that doesn't like to pay attention to subtleties. But, you'd rather blow all the rest of that stuff I talked about off so you can get your jab in at Bush.

Or since you like sound bites:

Y isn't X, as military technology is simply meant to take lives.

A fuller take:

Military technology can do its job without ever taking a single life (called a "show of force"). The specific type of stem cell research being discussed must take a life in order to harvest the stem cells.

Any "life saving" attributes of military technology are a side effect of how it is used (i.e. to defend a group of people), or meant to protect the one using the technology (body armor).

It is not simply technology meant to take lives in order to save lives. The specific type of stem cell research is.

So I dispute your point #2.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And I thought I went to great lengths to explain the difference, why this quote was still appropriate to the situation at hand, and how the media got the sound bite they wanted instead of a long-winded explanation trying to explain the subtleties to a public that doesn't like to pay attention to subtleties. But, you'd rather blow all the rest of that stuff I talked about off so you can get your jab in at Bush.

Or since you like sound bites:

Y isn't X, as military technology is simply meant to take lives.

A fuller take:

Military technology can do its job without ever taking a single life (called a "show of force"). The specific type of stem cell research being discussed must take a life in order to harvest the stem cells.

Any "life saving" attributes of military technology are a side effect of how it is used (i.e. to defend a group of people), or meant to protect the one using the technology (body armor).

It is not simply technology meant to take lives in order to save lives. The specific type of stem cell research is.

So I dispute your point #2.

You seem to be parsing words and playing semantic games to fit your point, and I don't necessarily disagree. But Bush made an unequivocal statement that left no room for the type of distinctions that you are attempting to draw. Notwithstanding that, stem cell research can also be conducted without a loss of life and especially without loss of life that would otherwise be saved. So now if you say that the only purpose of military science it to take lives, it leaves Bush in a more morally precarious position where he is in favor of research that could take lives and against research that could save lives.

This just goes to further my point that Bush's stance on this is less on principle and more on pandering to the religious right through some vague 'culture of life' references, a point that is backed up not only in the logic of his statements but also in the taped conversations from before he was president that were released a couple months ago.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You seem to be parsing words and playing semantic games to fit your point, and I don't necessarily disagree. But Bush made an unequivocal statement that left no room for the type of distinctions that you are attempting to draw. Notwithstanding that, stem cell research can also be conducted without a loss of life and especially without loss of life that would otherwise be saved. So now if you say that the only purpose of military science it to take lives, it leaves Bush in a more morally precarious position where he is in favor of research that could take lives and against research that could save lives.

You are completely ignoring the other bits in the original article where the Administration said it fully supports the other types of research. This was a very specific quote aimed at a very specific type of stem cell research.

As for parsing words and playing semantic games, I'm not the one trying to twist the quote to say something it doesn't. I still stick by my statement that the purpose of military technology is not to "save lives by taking lives". I believe that Bush feels the same way, or he would not have made the quote. I believe you are nitpicking to try and make the association between military research and stem cell research, all in an effort to find something else to bash Bush over. I've made my case that you're wrong on this, and all you are able to do is say I'm making straw man arguments and playing word games. Would you care to post evidence that the point behind military technology is to "save lives by taking lives", or at least explain why you feel that way, and more importantly (since you're attaching this opinion to Bush himself in order to prove Bush is being hypocritical) some evidence that Bush feels that way?

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

This just goes to further my point that Bush's stance on this is less on principle and more on pandering to the religious right through some vague 'culture of life' references, a point that is backed up not only in the logic of his statements but also in the taped conversations from before he was president that were released a couple months ago.

I have no idea if his stance is based on principle or not. I do know that an awful lot of people feel the same way he does on this particular research issue. And again, Bush has said he supports OTHER types of stem cell research, just not those involving actual embryos. As I said earlier in this thread, that sure seems like a very reasonable position.

And the fact that there are alternatives is what I believe Bush was getting at with his quote.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Most stem cell lines come from unused embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics. Abortion isn't really the major issue here unless you believe using those embroys (which would be destroyed anyway) is abortion.

Ding Ding Ding. This is where the heart of the debate is, Bush believes that destroying embryos is abortion. He and many in the same boat make the argument that we should respect life at every level, including when its a the stage of an embryo.

I'm totally for embryonic stem cell research and I'm glad the CA passed a bill that would use state money to jumpstart that research. The only reason I'm against Bush vetoing this bill is because its possible affect on public perception of stem cell research. Many who already support him on a number of issues will back him on this just for the sake of doing so and thus enter a debate they no nothing about.

Whenever someone brings up the issue of abortion at the embryo level I like to give a simple example. Say we have 13 year old girl who has diabetes. Her life is not just hampered by the disease but also shortened. The use of stem cell research to find the root of juvenile diabetes and many other horrible diseases could lead to a cure. The opposition would say exactly what Bush is saying, that he doesn't want to destroy life to try and save it. However, we reach a point where we have to determine which life is more important, the life of this embryo which has no home (it won't be implanted into a women for fertilization) or this 13 year old with diabetes?

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You seem to be parsing words and playing semantic games to fit your point, and I don't necessarily disagree. But Bush made an unequivocal statement that left no room for the type of distinctions that you are attempting to draw. Notwithstanding that, stem cell research can also be conducted without a loss of life and especially without loss of life that would otherwise be saved. So now if you say that the only purpose of military science it to take lives, it leaves Bush in a more morally precarious position where he is in favor of research that could take lives and against research that could save lives.

This just goes to further my point that Bush's stance on this is less on principle and more on pandering to the religious right through some vague 'culture of life' references, a point that is backed up not only in the logic of his statements but also in the taped conversations from before he was president that were released a couple months ago.

Whatever...