Comments on: Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill

Veto Is His Second Of Stem Cell Legislation During Presidency

[antoniof123]

what about a compromise? Only allowing embryonic stem cells form already created do to be destroyed blastocysts in freezers in vitro fertilization clinics thereby acknowledging no more would be created just to be destroyed and setting a sunset provision of five to 10 years? This also could encourage snowflake baby adoptions with tax incentives.
Posted by Rochest at 10:03 AM : Jun 21, 2007

The neo con party can't live with that it is there way or the highway. Sorry but the real problem is this if you don't beleive in it don't do it but leave other alone. Morons...

[abbe7]

"Only allowing embryonic stem cells form already created do to be destroyed blastocysts in freezers in vitro fertilization clinics thereby acknowledging no more would be created just to be destroyed and setting a sunset provision of five to 10 years? This also could encourage snowflake baby adoptions with tax incentives."

Again, I'm on your side, but what would the fertilization clinics do with the new extra blastocysts ? Donate them ? I'm not sure there is such a big market for them (unless some of the posters here volunteer to carry them until term).
Or would they have to produce just one at a time, regardless the failure ratio ?

[katg21]

"Scientists were first able to conduct research with embryonic stem cells in 1998, according to the National Institutes of Health. There were no federal funds available for the work until Bush announced on Aug. 9, 2001, that his administration would spend tax money for research on lines of cells that already were in existence. "(CBS/AP)

What do you call this? If scientists were able to conduct research on embryonic stem cells under a dem's watch, why wasn't it done? Bush made the first move on this; there have been 70 successes, according to stemcellresearchfacts.com; with adult stem cells ,so why not continue in that direction?

[hungry1968]

Once you are constituted a human being (which always occurs at fertilization or at an event that mimics fertilization like cloning), you are a new member of the human race who must be protected unconditionally.
Posted by katg21 at 09:36 AM : Jun 21, 2007

Apparently this train of thought doesn't apply to the 3545 soldiers killed in Iraq though?
Christian = hypocrite.

If you'd go to the website I mentioned you'll notice that the fact is there have been many successes with adult stem cells and umbilical cord cells; none for stem cells.
Posted by katg21 at 09:53 AM : Jun 21, 2007

Who posted this website you're refering to? Is this a scientific, unbiased, fact based website, or is it posted by some religious group with an agenda?

[rochest]

since it appears that this debate over what really are blastocysts.. potential or actual human beings... I really would like to move beyond the theoretical debated this point since I do not have the luxury of a healthy functioning body and since my disease is progressive I feel a time constrain here ......

what about a compromise? Only allowing embryonic stem cells form already created do to be destroyed blastocysts in freezers in vitro fertilization clinics thereby acknowledging no more would be created just to be destroyed and setting a sunset provision of five to 10 years? This also could encourage snowflake baby adoptions with tax incentives.

[abbe7]

"since there is no arguing let's turn to a practical compromise. How about placing a sunset provision on this bill of 5 or 10 years only allowing embryonic stem cells From already created slated for destruction invitro fertilization clinics that way none would be created just to be destroyed and there is a window for research to prove its promise. That way if no benefit comes from this research we can turn our attention elsewhere.

Posted by Rochest at 09:07 AM : Jun 21, 2007"

I agree with you, but there is no need to create embryos "just to be destroyed". There are plenty available which would go down the drain otherwise.

Bush wants only to stop the "federally-funded" research, whose results would be public domain and would not allow his corporate friends to make the money they would get from your wallet.

[hungry1968]

Embryonic stem cell research gets most of the media's attention, but adult stem cell research has actually been far more successful in providing cures for serious illnesses -- and it does so without harming human life in the process.
Posted by katg21 at 09:29 AM : Jun 21, 2007

It's been far more successful because there's federal funding for this research, where as Bush has again vetoed funding for embryonic research. If there was federal funding for embryonic stem cells, who knows how many terrible disease could be cured.

[katg21]

****, nice abbreviated language...sorry, but I don't take orders from you.
Posted by realpatriot1 at 09:42 AM : Jun 21, 2007

I'm sorry, was I giving you orders? I think not. Mine was an attempt to show another point of view; apparently you're incapable of hearing anyone out. If you'd go to the website I mentioned you'll notice that the fact is there have been many successes with adult stem cells and umbilical cord cells; none for stem cells.

[Geneius]

katg21:
Better to be unceremoniosly flushed down a drain than to serve some useful purpose as a human being?

[realpatriot1]

katg21,

No stem cell research has been successful yet..we need to continue research on all fronts.

pwslm,

****, nice abbreviated language...sorry, but I don't take orders from you.

Any child can see what I'm saying...why can't you?
It seems the 99% of what you consider to be the truth that I don't see is the contention that bush has looked at all the ethical issues. If he has,he's done so with your moral blinders on.

The line he's talking about crossing has already been crossed and is crossed everyday when old frozen and not viable embryos are discarded as bio waste.