Stem Cells bill vetoed

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by RedDuke, Jul 19, 2006.

  1. This is precisely why I would not vote republican. Bush’s logic just kills me. His main point about veto is that it is wrong because it destroys human life, but at the same time it ok for 2,500 of our soldier to die in the war based on lies, more than 10,000 injured and over 50,000 Iraqis killed. All this is fine, but to allow federal funding on something that is so promising is wrong.

    I just do not understand how people like this live with themselves.

    Regards,
    redduke
     
  2. Those "human lives" are destroyed whether or not they are used for research. Does Bush expect those egg cells to survive after they are flushed down the toilet? Frog eggs maybe, but not human ones.

    Who is he kidding?
     
  3. fhl

    fhl

    Since you apparently believe it is wrong for the soldiers to be killed in war, how do you justify destroying the life in stem cells? I guess if you can live with yourself, so can Bush.
     
  4. pattersb

    pattersb Guest

    At what point does it become a nightmare? Do you know?

    Frankly, I'd be much more comfortable if the science community discovered an alternative to finding cures than artificially creating human life only to destroy it.

    A main argument is , "If we don't, China Will!"

    ... It's going to be a frightening future. (And All You Putz's Know it....) "Mommy where do babies come from? Well Suzy, we had you custom designed online...."

    And all you organic, tofu eating naturalists, are the strongest supporters ....

    Just a little too creepy for me.
     
  5. Yes. I'm sure you would. Thank goodness human progress isn't in the hands of people like you. We'd still be "comfortably" living in caves, wearing bearskin and eating raw meat.

    I just wish we could all see how quickly you'd change your tune if this research resulted in an effective treatment for spinal trauma resulting in paralysis, and then someone you loved got in a bad accident (god forbid it) and needed it.

    It's the same problem for those who oppose capital punishment (like me). Try telling the father of a raped and murdered 12 year old that the cocksucker who did it doesn't deserve to die, on theoretical grounds, on the grounds that you personally find it objectionable.

    In 150 years, the ethical objections to stem cell research will seem as anachronistic as leeching does now.
     
  6. TraderNik,
    My point exactly. Anyone who opposes it today will change their mind in a split second if god forbids should it affect someone they love.

    Fhl,
    Destroying stem cells is not the same as killing people. Most of them won't be used any way. If we follow your logic then every time when you use contraception it is a murder as well.

    redduke
     
  7. pattersb

    pattersb Guest


    So, there is no reason what's so ever to prefer an alternative?

    You're a dipshit. A complete an utter dipshit. (My tree reaches back to James Watts by the way ... don't talk to me about living in caves.)

    Frankly, My Life is not worth devaluing all others humanity. It's you, who attempt to deify yourselves who are more concerned with your pathetic little existence that favor such means.

    "Science can do it, So it should be done!". Screw the ramifications.... I WANT A CURE NOW!
     
  8. pattersb

    pattersb Guest

    By the way, this is a done deal ... It's going to happen.


    Even so, I'd bet many of the greatest scientists through-out history would have been horrified had someone in their day proposed such a thing ...
     
  9. what happens when the rest of the world that does stem cell research (everyone else but us) finds a cure for Cancer and refuses to sell it to us because we didn't help out in the research???
     
  10. Yup, just like Nancy Reagan's views on stem cell research flipped 180°, the moment she found a personal use for it.

    After fetuses have already been aborted, what exactly is being 'protected' by insisting these resources must be flushed down the toilet, instead of given to scientists?
     
    #10     Jul 19, 2006