"President Bush has issued the first veto of his presidency, rejecting a bill to expand federal research on stem cells obtained from embryos."

getting over his limp dick problem, good for him. wonder if dole helped him at all. to bad I think this was a great bill... but all the people out there that don't like dudes kissing REALLY don't like Christopher Reeve eating baby fetuses.

Right, we wouldn't want to like....cure diseases....replace limbs and organs....or ANYTHING like that.

Oh no. Jesus doesn't want that.

I have to stop paying attention to things like this.

Too absurd.

bush is an idiot. he wont sacrifice an embryo to save lives, but he'll sacrifice soldiers in spreading democracy in the middle east.

Why is everyone so hung up on embryonic stem cells? The only stem cells that have actually shown any results are ADULT stem cells, which have been used to help heart problems and the likes. And the bill wasn't to allow embryonic stem cells; it was a decision of whether the government would pay for it or not. Frankly, I'd like to work with what's actually, you know, been working.

What's been working to cure Alzheimers?

PatMeebles said:

With things like government funding, embryotic stem cells show great potential.

I'm torn between the issue, I think reasons behind vetoing this bill are prbably very retarded, but at the same time, I thing some population controll is in order and I don't think people aught to be living so long or in such abundance.

i thought the plan was to use the embryos instead of having to try new techniques on adult stem cells. seems to me by studying the embryo at an early stage where there is a lot of stem cell activity, you can learn the most.

You all should stop thinking about shit like this. I think it is giving you all a headache. Drink a rum and coke like I am, and who cares. Be happy you are healthy if you are. This type of bill will pass at some point, give it time. Besides I have the new Guttural Secrete in, so I don't care.

i stopped drinking when its light out.

oh yeah, I forgot we cured diabetes, spinal chord injuries, organs failure, parkinson's, MS/AS, jerry's kids, strokes, and a few more.

the logic with "going with what works" is like telling people of the 1800's century not to industrialize.
like telling bill gate's, you know you are right!
"No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer."

I think it boils down to more people need to die.

in my dream world, a 'city' is composed of less than 10,000 people and everyone can own lake property as well as have their own personal ben and jerry's icecream shop.

of course, every familly will be assigned their very own ben and jerrys based on location. in times of famine, it will be considered procedure for people to be allotted only 4 visits per day.

PatMeebles said:

You can't figure out whether or not they will work and on what without years of careful testing. Stem cell research is very promising, and George Bush is only vetoing this bill to win the favor of the evangelicals and other diehard catholics. Plus, the study of embryonic stem cells as opposed to adult stem cells could give insight as to abnormal cell division and differentiation, which hypothetically could lead to huge breakthroughs in cancer treatment/prevention.

I sort of agree with whoever said they were torn between thinking the research is a good idea and the idea that humans shouldn't be living this long and such. It's kind of weird how unnatural human life is now. But anyway, I figure we got this far, there is no point in picking and choosing in what areas of technology we should dwell. We seem to have become a completely technologically based culture, so unless we want to throw it all in the toilet and go back to having 10-15 kids so one or two of them can survive, we might as well plough on ahead into more medical developments.

I heard there is a gay guy in Africa. True story.

don't you remember John Edward's claim during the 2004 presidential race. Right after the death of Christopher Reeves, the ambulance chaser said this:
"With John Kerry as president, people like Christopher Reeves will just get up out of that wheelchair and walk again"

mcmahon said:

I never said that we shouldn't improve. You guys are just putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that adult stem cells have shown much more promise for achieving these medical cures than embryonic stem cells have. If I remember correctly, people with heart problems in Brazil have already been cure with adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells, with the years of testing they've already gone through, have shown no promise at all. And I don't remember government funding either type of stem cell studies in the past, so adult stem cells haven't gotten more attention.

PatMeebles said:

I hope I didn't put any words in your mouth, sorry if I did. Yeah, you're right about adult stem cells showing promise, they are the type that can be used to "repair" (for lack of a better word) organs. But embryonic stem cells are the ones from which scientists hope to discover a lot about cancer, which we know relatively little about when you think about it, in hopes to discover a new way of combating it.

if there was a cure for everything in the world we'd create our end faster than we could've found out it was happening

taken from another forum:


"A couple of points here about STR. In 2001, Bush announced that the government would fund research on existing stem-cell lines. He did, not, however, want federal funds to encourage anyone to kill human embryos to derive more stem-cells. He thus refused to fund research on stem-cell lines after the funding was announced. Majik makes some good points in his previous thread about the private sector aspect of research going on. Another bill being proposed would fund research on stem cells taken from adults' tissues and umbilical cord blood. The evidence that I've looked at would indicate far greater promise with adult tissue and cord blood.

You also have to be wary of polls. We've been fed the 70% figure by the mainsteam press for Americans supporting stem cell research. A probable more accurate figure is a recent poll conducted by CBS which indicated a 58-31% favor of STR. However, that support drops substantially when it is clear that the research would be tax-payer funded and destroy human embryos. CBS asked this again, and the numbers switched 48-37% in favor of the President. Of course, the mainstream press didn't report that. So in reality, I think that some of you are expressing exaggerated "outrage" against Bush. No one should be surprised by his veto. Like it or not, he stuck by his principles. Now if it were Clinto, Gore or Kerry, they almost assuredly would have supported it. No one should be surprised by that either. "

I'm not surprised by Bush not supporting it. The fact is that the embryos grown for stem cell research are not natural embryos that could grow into children, but technologically mutated embryos grown for this specific purpose. At a very early stage, before the embryo is even visible to the naked eye, the cells are tampered with in a way so as to make them divide irregularly and produce a large amount of stem cells for research. I really wish I could find the source that I read this from, or even remember an actual number, but I'm almost positive this is done before the cell mass consists of even 50 cells. That's a much smaller amount of cells than the amount of sperm I flush down the toilet every time I jerk off. Each one of those sperm is a potential child, and at the time of the tampering with the embryo, it is barely further along in the development process of a human being when you think of the whole picture (the nine months it takes to conceive a child). Basically, I think stem cell research is harly more immoral than jerking off in the toilet is all I'm saying, and, on top of that, I don't think Bush's main motive for vetoing the bill was any sort of statistic, but rather just to win more support from the Catholics that love him so.