scribblings from a deist transhumanist libertarian minarchist citizen soldier

Why Bush’s Veto Was A Bad Idea

Posted by Shane in under other on Jul 20th, 2006 | View Comments |
Unfortunately President Bush vetoed the stem cell funding bill.   

Surrounded by babies and toddlers who began life as frozen embryos and were later adopted, Bush declared, “These boys and girls are not spare parts.”

“They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research,” the president said. “They remind us that we all begin our lives as a small collection of cells, and they remind us that in our zeal for new treatments and cures America must never abandon our fundamental morals.”

It’s not as if withholding the funds for research is going to save anyone’s “life”.  I suspect the opposite; funding stem cell research will save lives.  I think withholding funds from stem cell research is immoral!  Does the President have a sudden affinity for rats?  I completely fail to follow that logic.

From what little I know stem cells are what makes our existence possible.  I understand stem cells are the foundation from which we build all our other cells.  Sounds like pretty important stuff to me.  I’d like it if we gave some money to people who want to spend their time researching stem cells. 

Nay-sayers like to conjure horrific images; again like the President for example:

At the White House, Bush issued his veto in private, without cameras present. He also signed a bill into law to prohibit “fetal farming,” growing fetuses for the sole purpose of harvesting tissue, which is something that scientists say is not happening.

Horrifying if it were true but is that what funding this research is about?  There’s a difference between testing lab rats and running matrix-like body-part farms and it’s disappointing to think the President doesn’t understand that.

As he explained his decision in the ornate East Room of the White House, he noted that he was the first president to provide funding for embryonic stem cell research. He pointed out that there is no ban on this research.

Yeah well it’s too bad he didn’t sign the check.  I dont think anyone doesn’t know anybody who hasn’t benefited from the medical science.   

Senator Gordon Smith says it much more eloquently than I do:

“Today’s decision marks an unusually tragic first use of this president’s veto pen,” said Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., who has watched members of his family succumb to Parkinson’s disease. “When it is a matter of improving life for the living, I choose to err on the side of hope, healing and health; and I am disappointed that the president did not do the same.”

Similar Posts:

    None Found

| Print This Post Print This Post |
  • Shane: "Why doenst the private sector fund stem cell research? Ill tell you why David and its a one word answer: risk. "

    The risk is not just that they'll lose money on R&D that doesn't produce a marketable product, but that they'll lose all the profits from the product when trial lawyers smell blood in the water and the inevitable class-action lawsuits start filling courts. Why do you think there are no U.S. manufacturers of vaccines?

    I think Bush opened a Pandora's box of trouble by funding ANY stem-cell research. I have nothing against such research, embrionic or not, but I have a big problem with my tax dollars being spent on what should be a private concern. Capitalism works when government stays out of the way!
  • And I don't think my government should be throwing money away on some silver bullet program, or for that matter any program that doesn't fall within the purvue of the constitutional powers of the Congress, and that unfortunately includes a lot of programs that they do waste money on.
  • Trevor,

    Sorry for the delay in replying, I just haven't been back online to read your comment.

    As for the promise of Embryonic stem cell research, Confederate Yankee had a wonderful post on its limitations last week (http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/186869.php)

    The general gist of his post revolves around the problem scientists are having with embryonic stem cell growth, that being the uncontrollable growth of the test cells. He writes in part: "The reality of the matter is that embryonic stem cell research hasn't been able to get past a single fundamental hurdle that of unrestricted cell division, so that "promise" is nothing but a pipe dream."

    "Wikipedia reminds of what many of us forgot since high school: Cell division is the biological basis of life. For simple unicellular organisms such as the Amoeba, one cell division reproduces an entire organism. On a larger scale, cell division can create progeny from multicellular organisms, such as plants that grow from cuttings. But most importantly, cell division enables sexually reproducing organisms to develop from the one-celled zygote, which itself was produced by cell division from gametes. And after growth, cell division allows for continual renewal and repair of the organism."

    "But cell division must be regulated by the body, and a great deal of the genetic code we carry makes sure that growth is regulated and eventually terminated."

    "Embryonic stem cells, as I stated before, have a problem with unrestricted cell division."

    "There is another name for that problem, cancer, and many scientists seem to agree that it could take a decade or longer to fix that problem in embryonic stem cell research, if it is ever fixed at all."

    From everything I've read, and I'll admit it doesn't even scratch the surface of the depths of literature involving stem cell research, embryonic stem cell research just doens't produce the results that adult and placenta stem cell research already has.

    My biggest concern and agreement with Bush is that the federal government should not be funding every fad research project that comes along. The private sector is the best course of action for the continues funding of embryonic stem cell research as it is still an unproven theory. We see venture capitalist lining up to invest in video game production and a host of other industries but not the embryonic stem cell resaerch community; why? Is it just too risky, to bet on some suppossed cure for all that ails us, or is the science just not up to par with the rest of the scientific community?

    And no I'm not a scientist, I just play one on TV.

    And I won't disagree with you, stem cell research, adult and placenta stem cell research that is, does show a lot of promise its just that embryonic stem cell research hasn't lived up to its hype.
  • I'm going to agree with David M regarding private sector funding being much more efficient. But stem cell research shows promise from what I have read.

    David, are you a scientist? What leads you to say there is no scientific basis for stem cell research?
  • Wow Shane, I didn't realize I was predicting the future with my post there .... please enlighten me so that I can see the error of my ways.

    On second thought never mind!

    Embryonic Stem Cell research has not produced any advancements in the field of science and medicine that Adult and Placenta stem cell research already has. Why is there then a need to fund Embryonic stem cell research by the federal government, when the private sector is so much better at adminsitering this type of funding via Venture Capitalists? The Federal Government should not be the funder of first resort.

    I have to agree completely with Orlando, what if we find out that adult and placenta stem cell research is even more effective than Embryonic stem cell research, which by the way the scientific community seems to be telling us with its recent advances in curing disease.

    In my mind the bill was strictly a free lunch to the research community to alleviate them of any risk, ther was no scientific basis for it.
  • Is an embryonic stem cell a human being? Who says so?

    Until we can agree on when a bunch of cells becomes a human being, this issue will remain controversial. Perhaps the embryonic stem cells would like to tell us what they think. Hello? I can't hear you...

    Oh, that's right, you embryos can't think yet. Never mind... I thought we were going to have an intelligent conversation. Maybe you could just whimper as we harvest you. What say? No mouth? Hmm...can't think and don't have a mouth.

    Alright then. Are embryonic stem cells shaped like a human being at least? No? Well darn, I'm having a hard time finding reasons to treat embryonic stem cells as if they are humans... They can't reason, they have no mouths, no arms and legs, no emotions that I'm aware of. Perhaps a soul?

    Well, the Bible doesn't mention when the soul becomes attached to the embryo, so I'm not sure on that one...sounds to me like we should be able to harvest embryonic stem cells.

    Don't agree with me? Fine. Go read the definition of embryonic stem cells and get back to me.
  • Shane,

    What if we learned that if we harvested those stems cells 9 months later they would be almost 99 percent more effective? How many infants would you kill to for a cure?
  • MissBirdlegs in AL: Lol love the name!

    Let me throw that question back at you: What if we learned, through embryonic stem cell research; Parkinsons can be eliminated in an fetus as old as 6 months with a $50 shot during prenatal care? What would you say then?
  • MissBirdlegs in AL
    From the reading I've done, there has been quite a bit of success in adult stem cell research, much more promising than anything ever achieved with embryonic stem cells. No one objects to the adult stem cell research, either. Why not pursue that vigorously? Oh! I forgot, it's not controversial.

    I think the Pres. did the right thing. My mother had Parkinson's. As miserable as that was, she nor any of our family would have wanted an embryo destroyed in the vague hope of help for herself.
  • Dale: I knew if you gave me a chance we would agree on something ;-)

    David: I love people like you. You already know the outcome of everything that hasnt even happened yet.  You know better than any expert that stem cell research wont cure Parkinsons, Alzheimers, cancer or any other horrific disease. Unbelievable! Thank GOD we have you David; to spare us from making grave mistakes like funding stell cell research. To think Bush almost wasted all that money for NOTHING!

    Seriously though; you bring up a good point I failed to mention.  Why doenst the private sector fund stem cell research?  Ill tell you why David and its a one word answer:  risk.  No one in their right mind is going to invest billions of dollars on research that might or might not produce a product that will recoup them that money.  Thats where the government comes in and thats what its there for: to accomplish things for its citizens that they cannot otherwise achieve on an individual basis: like fighting wars, enforcing laws, or researching stem cells.

    George: I was referring to the lab rats that have been consequently spared because he vetoed the bill. I have a very dry sense of humor; Im hard to follow sometimes.
  • George S
    I see Dale has beat me to it, I'll just say I agree with him.

    (what does rats have to do with this ?)
  • Actually you have it all wrong, Bush did not veto a bill that would have with held fundiong for stem cell research, he vetoed a bill that with held funding for EMBYONIC stem cell research. There is a major difference.

    In point of fact he had wished that the House had looked at more closely and passed a bill that did fund adult stem cell research more than the Federal Government already does.

    Bush is absolutley correct to with hold embyonic stem cell funding, he has said from his election campaign that he did not support the distruction of human live simply so we can perform research, and that is exactly what Embyonic stem cell research does, it detroys fetuses harvested only for the purpose to destroy them and harvest the stem cells.

    If Embryonic stem cell research is the silver bullet to cure all the worlds diseases and defects then why isn't the private sector getting involved in funding this research, why must the federal government fund it when we have more pressing matters to at hand to fund?

    If Embryonic Stem Cell research will cure Parkinson's disease, why hasn't the private sector already funded and produced that cure? Why must the Federal Government lead the way on this risk and immoral path?

    For Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore to make such an outlandish statement is either pure politics or complete ignorance on what he was voting upon.
  • Dale
    We agree on this one.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Powered by Wordpress | Designed by Elegant Themes