President flip flops on non destructive stem cell research.

  1. is the president a divider or a decider? :wakeneo:

    from mother jones:

    "i'm disappointed that congress failed to pass another bill that would have promoted good research...it would have authorized additional federal funding for promising new research that could produce cells with the abilities of embryonic cells, but without the destruction of human embryos. this is an important piece of legislation...i'm disappointed that the house failed to authorize funding for this vital and ethical research."

    but this week a white house spokeswoman told the [color=#333399]new york times that
    "the new procedure would not satisfy the objections of mr. bush...any use of human embryos for research purposes raises serious ethical questions. this technique does not resolve those concerns."

    •  
  2. 21 Comments

  3. by   mercyteapot
    It is/was difficult to take Bush's disappointment seriously when I don't think anyone, even his most ardent supporter, can believe he has any real understanding of the complexities of this research.
  4. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from mercyteapot
    It is/was difficult to take Bush's disappointment seriously when I don't think anyone, even his most ardent supporter, can believe he has any real understanding of the complexities of this research.
    :yeahthat:
  5. by   Josh L.Ac.
    Actually, his objections do follow a rational, linear format. Any use of fertilized cells would be viewed as using a human as part of research and thus immoral.


    But if you don't subscribe to his definition of "human-hood", then it is easy to have an objection.
  6. by   mercyteapot
    I was speaking more of his attempt to explain to us how researchers could develop cells with embryonic properties without destroying human embryos. There is just no way I can believe he has the first notion of what such research would entail.
  7. by   emsrn1970
    Here is a solution for you Bush hating liberals. Actually field a candidate that can win an actual election. I know you "enlightened" liberals think Bush is a complete idiot but he continually beats the best you put forward in your own party. Every two years the press states that Democrats are going to make gains here and there and they continue to loose. It's so bad for you democrats that you actually have to resort to getting felons and illegal immigrants to try and vote for your candidates. If stem cell research is so promising tell me when we cure all these diseases? And if it is going to be 10 or 20 years down the road and billions of dollars then it is not worth the investment. That's the same logic you liberals use to refuse to drill in Anwar or build a missile defense system.
  8. by   Shamira Aizza
    Nor do you understand the complexities of a reasonable presentation of the facts.

    MJ conveniently left out the additional comments Ms. Lawrimore made saying that this research was a step in the right direction and that the WH was encouraged by the fact that scientists were making a move away from research that involved the destruction of embryo's.

    Ironically, there doesn't seem to be an actual quote available qualifying this 'suggestion' that Ms. Lawrimore allegedly made which supposedly indicates that Mr. Bush took contrary positions. Mr. Bush was going to sign the bill.

    BTW, this Bill was blocked by advocates of the original bill which promoted SCR which involved the destruction of embryo's. Yet, Mr. Bush is portrayed as the 'flip flopper?"
  9. by   Josh L.Ac.
    Quote from emsrn1970
    Here is a solution for you Bush hating liberals. Actually field a candidate that can win an actual election. I know you "enlightened" liberals think Bush is a complete idiot but he continually beats the best you put forward in your own party. Every two years the press states that Democrats are going to make gains here and there and they continue to loose. It's so bad for you democrats that you actually have to resort to getting felons and illegal immigrants to try and vote for your candidates. If stem cell research is so promising tell me when we cure all these diseases? And if it is going to be 10 or 20 years down the road and billions of dollars then it is not worth the investment. That's the same logic you liberals use to refuse to drill in Anwar or build a missile defense system.

    We'll get a good candidate once we quit pandering to public-opinion polls and actually field a liberal for a change. Much of the typical democractic platform disgusts me, but not nearly as much as the republican one.

    Oh, and after we spend billions of tax-payer dollars on embronyic stem cell research and actually find a cure, a pharmaceutical company will patent the specific line and make trillions.


    But they couldn't patent stem cells from cord blood, could they? Hmm...
  10. by   elkpark
    Quote from emsrn1970
    Here is a solution for you Bush hating liberals. Actually field a candidate that can win an actual election. I know you "enlightened" liberals think Bush is a complete idiot but he continually beats the best you put forward in your own party.
    Actually, if you recall, he didn't "win" in 2000; he was placed in office through a highly controversial and partisan Supreme Court decision. And there are serious allegations of significant improprieties and irregularities in the 2004 "election" that have never been investigated by Congress because, of course, the GOP has no incentive to examine or disclose any information about whether or not the election was rigged.

    Personally, I believe all the future lists of US presidents should have an asterisk by his name, as is done with the disputed sports records ...
  11. by   NRSKarenRN
    Please leave inflammatory, non productive statements such as "Here is a solution for you Bush hating liberals " at home....

    Does nothing to add to subject of debate or topic.

    Please reread our Terms of Service - All Users Please Read and Follow

    Back to your regularly scheduled program about stem cell research....
  12. by   cardiacRN2006
    Quote from elkpark
    Actually, if you recall, he didn't "win" in 2000; he was placed in office through a highly controversial and partisan Supreme Court decision. And there are serious allegations of significant improprieties and irregularities in the 2004 "election" that have never been investigated by Congress because, of course, the GOP has no incentive to examine or disclose any information about whether or not the election was rigged.

    Personally, I believe all the future lists of US presidents should have an asterisk by his name, as is done with the disputed sports records ...
  13. by   staygold
    Quote from mercyteapot
    I was speaking more of his attempt to explain to us how researchers could develop cells with embryonic properties without destroying human embryos. There is just no way I can believe he has the first notion of what such research would entail.
    There is a technique where they take take out the nucleus of one particular cell and put in the nucleus of a different type of cell.No embryos are destroyed but however its very new and the cells with the new nuclei inside of them don't posses the ability to turn into any type of cell like the embryonic cells do yet.This is just a general overview/ summary.Send me a private message if you want a more in depth explanation.Hope this helps a little,I know its not a complete answer to your question.
  14. by   elkpark
    Quote from Josh L.Ac.
    Actually, his objections do follow a rational, linear format. Any use of fertilized cells would be viewed as using a human as part of research and thus immoral.

    But if you don't subscribe to his definition of "human-hood", then it is easy to have an objection.
    But, if that were the ethical standard ("using a human as part of research" is "immoral"), then it would never be ethically acceptable to do research on any human subjects -- ???

close