BUSH THE HYPOCRITE aka EMBRYOS VS LEBANON

"With one stroke of his pen" and the lack of one towards Isreal..

kingbush says this stem cell research is murder. kingbush denies hope for many.

innocent folks in Lebanon are being killed. kingbush does not stop Isreal.

I have rheumatoid arthritis and other serious protein breakdowns in the blood that this medical research could possiby improve my life. My blood is highly defective where this advanced medical research could really turn my life around. But Bush can justify this medical research veto on one hand, claiming to be "prolife", but then started the war in Iraq that has killed 14,000 persons so far this year. So much for his "prolife" hypocrisy. He knew full well that war would take many lives, and he knows that this veto of medical research will take many lives as well, but he still tells the gullible that he's "prolife".

PROGRESSIVE VALUES

This man says that he believes in "the sanctity of life". I suppose that's why he publicly ridiculed death row inmate Karla Faye Tucker on national TV before she was executed in Texas. This guy sure is responsible for a lot of death considering he is so dedicated to the sanctity of life.

All these supposed pro-life people seem to do is try to make themselves God.Thay want to choose who lives and who dies.It`s rather hypocritical to sign off on peoples lives,and yet sign on wholeheartedly to war in the mideast.Both positions to me are against life!Quite frankly I`m sick to death of these people trying to cram down my throat how I am suppose to live.Last time I checked I thuoght we suppose to be a free country.These people don`t seem to respect any other views as someones right to think and feel the way they want.They do not respect other peoples religious views.

Everyone, I mean EVERYONE, please write your congress people and senators and urge them to override this morally reprehensible veto NOW!!!

It's now plain for all to see where the priorities are for the Republican party and their leader...certainly not with average Americans.

All these supposed pro-life people seem to do is try to make themselves God.Thay want to choose who lives and who dies.It`s rather hypocritical to sign off on peoples lives,and yet sign on wholeheartedly to war in the mideast.Both positions to me are against life!Quite frankly I`m sick to death of these people trying to cram down my throat how I am suppose to live.Last time I checked I thuoght we suppose to be a free country.These people don`t seem to respect any other views as someones right to think and feel the way they want.They do not respect other peoples religious views.

From across the pond, the Times comments on the Bush veto.
Bush's 1st Veto

Sorry the link doesn't seem to work.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2277642,00.html

I noticed 14 house Democrats voted with the President. This is the kind of crap that makes me send my money to political action groups like MoveOn.

King George's cult members don't own my body.

The DNC is playing loose with the truth. Even the new Time Mag says so. Bush did not stop stem cell research, and adult stem cell research is as promising as embryonic. Furthermore, as Time points out, federal funding would not have resulted in that many more lines. Also, if so many people, Dem and Rep, are for embryonic stem cell research, then clearly Bush's veto was not for political reasons. Even if it was, the research can still continue, just not off the public nipple. What is political is how the Dems are lying about what really happened! Dean must not be much of a doctor, or else he would know this.

"With One Stroke of His Pen....

.....the President of the United Apes showed the American people his azz."

In response to formercalifornian:

Embryonic and adult stem cells differ in many ways and one may lead to cures while the other may not. Therefore we should be allowed to research both. Some facts about the differences from the NIH:

" What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells?

Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. Of course, adult and embryonic stem cells differ in the number and type of differentiated cells types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. However, some evidence suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become.

Large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be relatively easily grown in culture, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues and methods for expanding their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies.

A potential advantage of using stem cells from an adult is that the patient's own cells could be expanded in culture and then reintroduced into the patient. The use of the patient's own adult stem cells would mean that the cells would not be rejected by the immune system. This represents a significant advantage as immune rejection is a difficult problem that can only be circumvented with immunosuppressive drugs.

Embryonic stem cells from a donor introduced into a patient could cause transplant rejection. However, whether the recipient would reject donor embryonic stem cells has not been determined in human experiments."

The fact that more cells can be grown from embryonic stem cells seems to make embryonic stem cell research a more likely candidate for multiple research projects and perhaps a better candidate for cures. We won't know unless we can experiment.

Just my opinion.

" Dean must not be much of a doctor, or else he would know this."

last time i looked, dean has an MD after his name. bush has a jr after his.

livinginKS,

You're right, we should be allowed, and are allowed to pursue both. Bush's veto does not ban embyonic research, just limits the funding. Also, given the number of embryos available, after deducting those that will be used for pregnancy attempts, the number of new lines had Bush not vetoed would have been small, according to Rand Corp.

Its time to label these "RUBBERSTAMP" Republicans,In congress for what they are, "BUSHITES", not SHEITES, but "BUSHITES" and they are full of that word in the middle. Also that word that Bush said in the open Microphone. Its time we wake up, for we are living in a Fascist Pig Dictatorship! We will never get anything past until we VOTE OUT THESE FASCIST PIG BUSHITES! We must give the power to the people, and take it away from the Bush Fascist Regime.

VOTE OUT "BUSHITES!

Its time to label these "RUBBERSTAMP" Republicans,In congress for what they are, "BUSHITES", not SHEITES, but "BUSHITES" and they are full of that word in the middle. Also that word that Bush said in the open Microphone. Its time we wake up, for we are living in a Fascist Pig Dictatorship! We will never get anything past until we VOTE OUT THESE FASCIST PIG BUSHITES! We must give the power to the people, and take it away from the Bush Fascist Regime.

VOTE OUT "BUSHITES!

Time for the nonsense to stop.What happened to America being for Americans not Corporate America. The Politicians need to get Pharmacutical Hands out of their Pockets...If 70% of Americans are for this why are our elected officials not rallying to Override the Veto and get some backbone...Vote for your Interest not a Party...Vote out politicians with no cajones to do what is right.Stem Cell Research can help us all.We stamped out Polio, We stamped out Measles...Why not Athritis and Alzheimers and Parkinsons...The World would be a better place...They choose to make there own choices about who shall suffer and who shall die from diseases that we should be able to cure or prevent.They waste time on Flag burning...We need to restore checks and balances to a system that has worked since being formed by the Framers...I count the days till this Gestapo is out of Office!

My Democrat Friends,

There is an essential objective fact that you simply refuse to acknowledge. While putting forth the notion that science supports the advancement of embryonic stem cell research, you continue to ignore the basic, objective, science that is the new foundation of this debate; that since the successful mapping of the human genome in 2003, it can now be show—irrefutably—that we are in fact distinct, living, human beings from the moment of conception. We have to embrace this new reality, that this has nothing to do with personal philosophical or ideologically driven opinion or religious belief... this is objective, emperical science. The ultimate question that must be posed then is this; if we are in fact distinct, living, human beings from the moment of conception, are the lives of these "persons" protected by the Constitution of the United State of American, in particular the 14th Amendment? Nobody, including George W. Bush—whom you all apparently hate with an unbridled vehemence—wants anyone to suffer the anguish of death brought about by currently incurrable deseases. We simply do not—as a nation of laws—have the Constitutional authority to sacrifice one innocent person's life for the benefit of another. In a moment of personal reflection, I hope you will all take the opportunity to objectively examine the merits of these comments, with all due sincerity.

george's science teacher must be very ashamed.
of course, what can you expect from an illiterate, in-bred degenerate?

shame on you george, you speak out of both sides of your mouth. your against abortion yet you veto
a bill that would give life to so many.

had enough? i know i've had.

what would Jesus do?

There is an essential objective fact that you simply refuse to acknowledge. While putting forth the notion that science supports the advancement of embryonic stem cell research, you continue to ignore the basic, objective, science that is the new foundation of this debate;

And ignoramus like yourself continue to ignore the fact THESE CELLS ARE GOING TO BE FLUSHED DOWN THE TOILET. PEOPLE WILL NOT RELEASE THEM FOR ANYTHING BUT RESEARCH. THAT THESE EMBRYOS CAN BE USED TO SAVE MILLIONS OF LIVES IN THE FUTURE, BUT PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF THINK LITTLE BABIES ARE GOING TO BE BORN AND FLOURISH!

I watched a total Fool on C-Span last night, re-showing the debate on the Senate floor, with his poster and trying to give personality and life to these clusters of embryos. Another one trying to equate an egg with an eagle! I plan on contacting them today to ask if those were his wife's excess eggs, would he want them to just go out to anyone? That when fertilized and grown, they could suffer from Divorce, Alcohol , abuse. This is why those owners of those embryos prefer to have them flushed ! They know they are only cells and no life is being destroyed.

What is even worse is where this type of thinking leads. I actually talked with someone who agreed with Bush and he thinks all embryos should be implanted in the womb of the mother. Can you imagine the mortality rate of women and newborns if this happened? This is why government should stay out of healthcare decisions of women. Many men do not have any idea what they are talking about when it comes to child-bearing. And the majority of our elected officials are men. I say lets implant donor wombs in their abdomens and let them carry the embryos themselves.

Mom

Not all of those embryos are even Good eggs.

My niece and others I know went through this procedure in order to try and separate out good viable eggs from those that were aging and deteriorating.

People DO THIS procedure because of problems.

I love their ignorant term, fetal farming. Did you watch Jon Stewart last night? He did a hilarious skit on that.

The first man they implant these embryos into, who then has to go through child birth out through his rectum, will be the end of it all. They will hear his screams all over the world! :)

This is why men have the audacity to dare and talk about stem cells and abortion and women's rights. They have no idea that a woman's uterus is her own!

Yeow... Ignoramus! I'm very, very hurt Pam! OK... I guess I'll have to concede to your superior intellect. However, and please help a dolt like me out here, you pulled a quote out of my previous comments that, "... you continue to ignore the basic, objective science that is the new foundation of this debate... " and then in your response, you do just this, you continue to ignore it! Look, I'm just a person like you and everyone else, no better or worse, as individuals we want what we want. Sometimes we can have what we want, other times we can't. Someone wants to get plastered, not a problem. Then they want to get in a car and drive, now we have a problem. Someone wants to smoke a cigarette, not a problem. Same person wants to smoke that cigarette in a restaurant in California, now we have a problem. The principle at work here is the basis of all of our Constitutionally guaranteed rights; my rights as an individual extend to that point at which they infringe upon the rights of another individual. We want to conduct embryonic stem cell research because it may provide us with a panacea of medical breakthroughs, great idea, not a problem! To conduct embryonic stem cell research we have to end the life of a living human being... now we have a problem. It is not my intent to sound condescending, and I apologize if I have, but I think the problem you're having is that you still don't believe that an embryo is a distinct, living, human being. Am I right or wrong? You tell me. Please... don't take my word for it, as you have surmised, I am no where near intelligent enough to have either discovered this scientific fact, nor even creative enough to have made it up. Go research this information for yourself, I assure you it has nothing to do with me personally! As far as what should be done with these existing frozen embryos if they're not going to be implanted for pregnancy; it's my opinion that there should be a legal hearing (due process) and then if so directed by the donor parents, they should be thawed, allowed to expire, and then disposed of in a dignified manner.

Posted by jonhn on July 20, 2006 at 01:46 PM

What is more dignified then using the cells to give others life?

You seem to be more pro-birth than pro-life.

Dear BlueinIndaho, what I am is pro human rights! And I try to be as indiscriminate as I can be towards all people. As PamB and many others ingaged in this debate, it's apparent that by your use of the word "cells" you too are having a problem getting you mind around the central fact driving this issue; that from the moment of conception we (you, me, everybody) are distinct living human beings. Don't think for a moment that the possible medical advances from embryonic stem cell research aren't attractive to me... they are! However attractive they seem, the moment we put their value over the value of a human life... we're in real danger. I'll give you another quick analogy related to "wanting" something we can't have. In the 1850s the Southern States seceded from the Union because they wanted the institution of slavery to continue and to expand into the new territories. They felt that slavery was essential to their cultural and economic survival. They wanted it! Because our central government resisted this expansion of slavery into the new territories, the South decided to create their own country. The original intent of the North—and Lincoln himself at the beginning of the civil war—was to "save the union." There was a prevalent cultural attitude at the time that black slaves weren't really human beings and therefore were not protected under the Constitution. In fact at the time, the institution of slavery was actually Constitutionally protected! There was a growing number of people however, Lincoln among them, that realized that in fact black slaves were human beings and that their enslavement went against every principle that this country was founded upon. Therefore, halfway through Lincoln's first term—and the civil war—the North's reason for the continued prosecution of the war became the abolition of slavery and the subsequent protection of their rights under the Constitution. Now, we lost about 418,000 American lives deciding this conflict; obviously we don't need to have a civil war to decide the embryonic stem cell research and abortion debates. It does however, require thinking, intelligent persons such as yourself, to acknowledge and embrace the underlying truths and realities of these issues. It can be done. We're all in this together. Nobody is to blame! By the way, in answer to your question, it has become common practice for individuals to donate their organs after they have deceased and this is a very dignified thing to do, the key here is, "after" they have deceased. If these embryos were not distinct living human beings, I would have no problem with science using them for experimentation. Thanks for your rebuttal!

Posted by jonhn on July 21, 2006 at 08:18 AM

The point is that you are completely missing the point. This is not about whether life exists at the point of conception. Lets for a moment agree that it does. Now move to what to do with those embryos. Would it be better to use them to save a life or to incinerate them? If you still take the position that to incinerate them is more dignified then to save another human being's life, then I believe you are putting your church's values over the value of human life. How can you possible call yourself prolife with that stance? WWJD??

BlueinIdaho, sorry, I don't belong to a church or any organized religion but I certainly wouldn't have a problem with you or your opinions if you yourself are in fact a church goer. However, as a strong supporter of the 1st Amendment, I believe that personal philosophical or religious beliefs have no role in this argument. After all, if they did have a role, who's particular religious beliefs would we be forced to follow? This is why we have to turn to science and objectivety when trying to address these particular issues. I absolutely do get your point! The pragmatist's argument (yours) is that regardless if this embryo is a distinct living human being, this is of no regard, and that the benefits gained by it's destruction and subsequent experimentation on, far outweight it's value as an individual and... certainly more than our nations interests in protecting it's Constitutional rights. Here's the deal my friend, my neighbor's grandmother is starting to become a real drag, and he really can't afford to take care of her any more. His sister could use her corneas and his brother could really get some use out of her kidneys. So, you tell me, does he have the right to put a pillow over her head tonight because she might be of some nobel use to some other suffering person? Look, I'm not even suggesting that you would even consider saying yes to this absurd question, and I've probably horrified most of the people reading this. Of course the answer is no! Again, BlueinIdaho, I understand your argument completely, when I was younger it was an argument I used myself on occasion. It is not my intent to be argumentative but I still suggest it is you that is still having a problem understanding that this embryo is a distinct, living, human being. Not because I say so... because science shows us this. Consequently: ... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws... becomes the applicable law of the land. Whether a human being exists—objectively—at conception... is precisely the point!

regardless if this embryo is a distinct living human being, this is of no regard, and that the benefits gained by it's destruction and subsequent experimentation on, far outweight it's value as an individual and... certainly more than our nations interests in protecting it's Constitutional rights.

You still are off point. I agree that if someone wishes to implant this embryo and make a baby, they should do so. But, if the embryo is going to be destroyed, then LIFE would be better served by GIVING LIFE, not destroying it for the sake of destruction. As for the Grandma (lack of) analogy, if the Grandma was dying and the organs of the Grandma could be harvested, then I say yes, take the organs and use them rather than burying them six feet.

So, for the record, please state that you believe that the incineration of embryos THAT ARE HEADED FOR DESTRUCTION better serves human life than their use to give life to another human being. Because, that appears to be your argument.

Dear BlueinIdaho, I absolutely could not say this. You are most certainly correct, killing these embryos to use for embryonic stem cell research would most definitely serve another human life more than just allowing them to die, (I was going to use "incinerate" but you paint such a vivid picture with it), I have never once disputed this... not once. The point I'm laboring to make, and that I'm hoping you ultimately have the capacity to grasp, is again; even though the above is true, even though there are desperately ill people who could use this technology and these medical innovations, even though we WANT to do it... we cannot. We do not have the right to end one person's life for the benefit of another. You seem to be an intelligent person and I appreciate your willingness to debate this important issue. You need to consider though, that the premise of your arguments—that an embryo is not a distinct, living, human being, and therefore it's life is not protected by the Constitution of the United State—is insupportable by objective, scientific fact.

Posted by jonhn on July 21, 2006 at 04:38 PM

We are not "ending one person's right for the benefit of another". These are embryos that will be ended regardless of whether they are used for a greater good or not. Your argument implies that harvesting organs is also not "constitutional". Many times the harvesting is done when the person is declared brain dead, but the heart is still beating. Now, on one hand you have an otherwise living being that still has a beating heart and on the other you have an embryo that will never take a breath. Do you agree then that harvesting organs from the bodies of patients who's hearts are still beating is "unconstitutional" as you described in your earlier post?

King George chose to throw the embryos away! King George is a murderer!

BlueinIdaho, I'll let you have the last word. I've enjoyed our exchange of ideas. Obviously, I'm not a physician, but it's always been my understanding that doctors wait until all vital signs have ceased—including heart beat and respiration—before beginning to harvest organs, I may be wrong about this however. You make an interesting point; should the parents of these embryos be alowed to donate them for scientific purposes much like a parent or legal guardian giving permission for the harvesting of organs from a recently deceased child, spouse or parent? Honestly, I don't know. It's really not apples to apples. In the case of an organ donar, tissues are still viable after brain function, respiration and heart beat have ceased, which we typically consider to be death. However, an embryo, in this stage of development, has no brain function, or heartbeat, it only has cell respiration, growth and division as idicators that it is a living organism. At a point where the cells stop respirating, growing and dividing—essentially death—would the embryo be of any value for stem cell research? I don't know. The problem that we have to avoid is the creation of embryos expressly for this purpose. It's a very slippery slope we're trying to navigate at the moment. Hope to see your comments again in the future!