BF2S Forums Bush vetoes embryonic stem-cell bill

Foxhoundmgw wrote:

I repeat.... You are a clownshoe.

Clownshoe

I've never heard that before, but that's just funny.

John-Paul wrote:

Deeming me a 'liberal' because I have a problem with this veto and the (well-meaning) asshole responsible is jumping the gun a little, wouldn't you say?

I shudder to think you might be serious in categorising people as either "liberals" or "conservatives" and thus prone to any particular kind of thought. Anyone with a mind of their own recognises those generalisations as stupid; akin to thinking you know anything about a person's thoughts simply because you know their gender or the colour of their skin. I have right-wing leanings on some subjects, left on others, so spare me the tiresome labels. There are more than enough people on both sides of politics to engage in that sort of crap without having to read it in here, too.

Well, well...don't we get all worked up when the shoe is on the other foot. You may shudder all you like but I remind you sir, that it was you who first made a 'crap' like remark pointed at persons that voted for Bush. Your point on reading that sort of 'crap' here in the forum is well taken but disingenous on your part in light of your remarks, in jest though they may have been. How interesting it is to see someone become so indignant after they are called in like manner on their remarks.

In light of the fact that the only thing that Bush vetoed is federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, I fail to see how it much affects you all the way down in Aus. Feel free to donate your money to the cause.

Vampira_NB wrote:

Darth_Fleder wrote:

Pinto wrote:

By your logic, how do you eat?  Plants and animals are alive and grown for our consumption.

So now we are equating unborn human life down to the level of food?

I have to agree with pinto, he wasn't comparing an unborn human to food, he was just specifying that we bassically grow animals  and kill them so we can eat, In that cow's mind he's much more important than that of a child, yet in our minds the cow is food and nothing else, How does that justify killing the cow?

I ain't a fucking vegan, I love steak, ribs and chicken with a passion, I'm just attempting to make a point.

Vampira, what exactly is the point of that line of reasoning?

Chuckles wrote:

captain_itchy_pants wrote:

Agreed. Maybe we should wait till Hillary is in, huh? No F@#king way, that crazy Bit$h would have the flood gates open to abortion clinics where its abortion on demand. Screw that. Why did Bush use his veto and his only veto in his presidency? To save lives, embryos and taxpayers money from fruitless searches.

Hillary Clinton is on record as saying that abortion should be safe, legal, and RARE.  She wants to implement programs to stop unwanted pregnancies before they start, such as making birth control more widely available.  Nobody with a brain wants to see abortions increase.  Lots of people believe it should be an option though.  I personally agree that it would be better to have fewer unwanted pregnancies to begin with.

Hillary clinton says alot of things

Are you rednecks trying to kill me to laughter? How can those warmongerers who wish happy death to every muslim suddenly become sooo ethical and concerned about "life" of a cellstack?

Give me break. At least admit that you're babbling just to defend Bush and/or republicans.

Finland, Finland, Finland,
                The country where I want to be,
                Pony trekking or camping,
                Or just watching TV,
                Finland, Finland, Finland,
                It's the country for me.

          You're so near to Russia,
                So far from Japan,
                Quite a long way from Cairo,
                Lots of miles from Vietnam.

         Finland, Finland, Finland,
                The country where I want to be,
                Eating breakfast or dinner,
                Or snack lunch in the hall,
                Finland, Finland, Finland,
                Finland has it all.

         You're so sadly neglected,
                And often ignored,
                A poor second to Belgium,
                When going abroad.

         Finland, Finland, Finland,
                The country where I quite want to be,
                Your mountains so lofty,
                Your treetops so tall,
                Finland, Finland, Finland,
                Finland has it all.

         Finland, Finland, Finland,
                The country where I quite want to be,
                Your mountains so lofty,
                Your treetops so tall,
                Finland, Finland, Finland,
                Finland has it all.

         Finland has it all...

Great song! and lighten up PekkaA! Any threats against any one should be taken seriously and should not be allowed here.

kr@cker,

I don't have your photoshop skills, but I think my referencing is better.  Here is an article from the Washington Times describing Hillary's position.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national … -1641r.htm

Here is the full text of her speech.

http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/spee … 25A05.html

I'm really not here to defend Hillary Clinton though.  My main point is that I don't think that the lives of embryos that are going to be tossed out with the garbage anyway trumps those of someone's Grandma living with Alzheimer's.

It sometimes seems to me like some conservatives are awfully concerned with the sanctify of life:  Right up to the moment that baby is born poor (parents make less than $200,000 combined per year), or a minority, or sick, or outside the United States.  If any of that happens, to hell with you.

Dart_Fleder wrote:

Well that is faulty logic to say the least, they were once illegal. Using that form of logic they would never have become legal. I hate to point this out, but abortion has been illegal for most of human history.

So what? It's also been illegal to believe that earth isn't center of universe. Or to believe in something else than christian god. Or being gay. Or this and that. What's YOUR logic?

Dart_Fleder wrote:

Just because people are doing it does not necessarily make it right.

But shouldn't society work in a way that majority of people want it to?

Dart_Fleder wrote:

Try looking up the figures for the deaths attributable to communism/socialism...approximately 80 million in the 20th century. What are the figures for abortions conducted worldwide every year?

I think religion shouldn't be mixed to a system of government. At least not nowadays. Sadly there are leaders who still do. (at least one). Everyone doesn't consider abortion equal to killing.

And your statement about Hippocratic oath.... isn't it obvious that it's mostly a tradition. Or maybe doctors believe in ancient greek gods... At least here it's voluntary for new doctors. What has corruption to do with stem-cell exploration? I'd say dubyas veto was more likely to be a payback to bible-belt voters who funded his campaign, which could be called venal.

Last edited by PekkaA (2006-07-20 15:19:24)

OMG HE"S WRONG CUZ HE SEZ HEZ A CHRISTIAN!!!!  yet you'd still be whining if he wasn't

There's been a great deal of talk about abortion in any respect being the ending of a human life. I believe This to be a rather specious claim for two reasons.

1. There is no medical evidence that a zygote or a fetus in the very early stages of developement is any more human (in the sense that you and I are human) than say, a houseplant. It has the potential to become human if a very precise set of criteria is met in the future, but as a zygote it is little more than a cell or collection of cells with the genetic information necessary to grow into a human. The concept that life begins at conception is based largely on vague notions of "I was once an embryo/fetus/zygote, therefore they are human", and this idea is without merit. You and I were also once sperm and egg cells, and I don't think anyone has a problem with those going to waste. After all, millions upon millions of sperm cells die every time a man ejaculates, even if it does result in a pregnancy.

2. 'Brain death' has emerged as the leading indication of legal death in the United States, because without brain activity the body is nothing more than a collection of organic matter. Without a brain the body cannot even sustain itself without life support. During fetal development, the brain does not even begin to form until the 3rd week of pregnancy, and is by no means functional until much later.  Because of this and the fact that being a human in any real sense is utterly dependant on having a functional brain, I do not see how killing a collection of cells with the potential to one day become human is any different than killing a plant, or some bacteria. Of course, the line must be drawn at some point in pregnancy, and I am neither qualified nor willing to say when that should be, but it certainly isn't at conception, and its very likely not before the third trimester. If it were up to me I would draw the line for abortion at the end of the first trimester, just to, as someone said, "err on the side of life", but thankfully that responsibility is not up to me.

Some sources:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency … 002398.htm
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112

Darth Fleder wrote:

How typical, when a liberal doesn't get their way their gut response is to wish death and disease upon the opposition.

This would seem to be a prime example of the fallacy of composition, with just a hint of guilt by association.

-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:

alpinestar wrote:

When I said Bush is retarded lastime I got gangbanged by rednecks on these forums.
Why can't anyone open their eyes ?

Bush is retarded? Your the one with a micheal J fox sig.

rofl owned, Bush is a good president... if he wasnt he wouldnt have been RE-ELECTED and there was a reason to why he vetoed it.

Darth_Fleder wrote:

Spark wrote:

We have issues because by far the research 'country' with the most funds and the best training is the US.

And so it the reponsibility of the American taxpayer to lead the way? Again, I point out that private research is permitted, so feel feel free to put your money where your heart is and invest in it. 

You know, in light of the rampant anti-Americanism in the world, I have to say that I even less inclined to be persuaded by that argument. Our past endeavors in such world-changing discoveries have certainly not garnered us any long standing worldwide affection.

Yes, it is the American taxpayers responsibility.  This is the only reason I can see that justifies the United States and where we're at in the world.  Obviously, the US is a VERY wealthy nation, for a long time I believed that it was unfair to not spread the wealth around and help out the entire world (which we are capable of doing, our leaders just have other things on their agendas).  Now I still do believe that, but I also believe that for the world to advance, there needs to be some 'unfairness'.  If everyone was equal standard of living, wealth .. everything would decrease (for rich countries while bringing everything up in the poorer ones).  Now, by leveling everything off, everyone would be at an 'equal' in terms of resources, money... etc so countires like the US would all be poorer.  So now people would be worried about food, clothing you know necesities.  So technology and medicine... everything like that would cease to advance.  I believe that the US,  being the one of the 'rich nations' has a duty to discover these new advancements, in medicine especially. That way the rest of the world benefits.  So to answer the topic.  I believe it is a selfish thing to do, considering that it would help a lot more alive people then it would hurt nonliving ones.

and to the people who are going to read my post and not get anything out of it except 'American posting about how great America is and that it is better then any other country blah blah blah'. you didnt understand what I was trying to say so read it again.

Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2006-07-20 18:44:43)

kr@cker wrote:

I did read the bill a few weeks ago, haven't read it since it was no doubt modified at the house and senate levels as always, but these modifications almost always happens in regards to the $$$ aspect of it, I am aware of the different types of stem cell research, as I have been following it as a matter of curiosity for years, the fact that your post is longer and is written with a condescending attitude does not make you correct, the fact remains that, until you can prove that a fertilized embryo is not a human, then we should err on the side of not killing humans for research purposes.

Do not mistake an informed and detailed post explaining stem cells to the masses as condescending and I will not mistake your misconception as you being an ass. Deal?

Darth_Fleder wrote:

If the accusation is made that holding certain Judeo-Christian beliefs that oppose the killing of the unborn and/or using them as research material indicts one in some way, it is a sad testimony to the state of our society. I don't want to get drawn into a theological debate, but one of the founding tenets of our nation was the toleration for holding religious views. That belief is going by the wayside as the so-called 'enlightened' atheists are now trying to foist their views on others.

Indeed the toleration and the belief that any religion could be practiced without retrobution from the government. This does not include BTW procecution by the people, ask the Mormons on that one.  Once the religious view of another interfere with my way of life (see Religious Right Wing Presidential Office) then I have an issue with religion because now those beliefs are being imposed and forced upon my own way of life.

But yes.. we are on topic because Religion is the crux of the issue on the morality of embryonic stem cell research.