Stem cell vote

He'll veto, he has to give something back to Dobson after yesterday.

Actually they don't have enough to overide if Bush veto's.

Wonder what got into congress to do this about face out of the blue?

No clear Buddhist stance on stem cell work
By Damien Keown

Scientists see great potential for the use of human stem cells in the treatment of many medical conditions, including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, diabetes, spinal cord injuries and degenerative heart conditions. Given the emphasis that Buddhism places on the central virtues of knowledge (prajña), compassion (karua) and its long tradition of practicing medicine in the monasteries, the prospect of developing cures and treatments that alleviate human suffering should be welcomed. Buddhism, however, also places great importance on the principle of ahimsa, or non-harming, and therefore has grave reservations about any scientific procedure that destroys life ?- whether human or animal.

While Buddhism has no central authority competent to pronounce on ethical dilemmas, like other religions, it would appear that there is no ethical problem in principle with the therapeutic use of adult stem cells. But research involving the intentional destruction of human life, such as harvesting embryonic stem cells, is morally impermissible.

Buddhism believes in rebirth and teaches that individual human life begins at conception. The new being, bearing the karmic identity of a recently deceased individual, is therefore as entitled to the same moral respect as an adult human being. For this reason, Buddhism would see the moral issues raised by stem cell research as similar to those raised by IVF treatment involving the destruction of spare embryos and abortion, regardless of the researchers' benevolent intentions or the subsequent positive consequences of the experiments.

It would therefore be immoral for stem cell researchers to use either surplus, unwanted or frozen embryos created for IVF treatment ?- regardless of whether they would eventually be destroyed ?- or cloned human embryos specifically created for research purposes, such as the 30 blastocysts recently created in South Korea from which one new stem cell line was derived.

There are a number of different views regarding the use of stem cells taken from aborted fetuses. Some believe it is permissible since the central objection that a living being was harmed through the cell harvesting would not apply because the donor is already deceased. The situation may be analogous to cadaveric organ donation for transplantation where legally valid consent has been obtained from the next of kin. The criterion here is similar to that President Bush employed in his 2001 decision allowing U.S. government-sponsored research to utilize 60 existing embryonic stem cell lines but not to use or develop new ones.

The alternative position takes a stricter view on the question of complicity, stating that the cells obtained through abortion would be tainted by the immorality of the abortion itself and should therefore not be used. The analogy of organ donation would be challenged because the person providing the consent (usually the mother) is the same person directly responsible for the donor's death. A better analogy is with stolen money from a bank robbery used for charitable purposes, something which would still be wrong regardless of the good achieved.

There is scope for legitimate disagreement on this particular point, though the majority of Buddhists may incline toward the former position. It is interesting that Buddhists are the religious majority in the country where the latest breakthrough in stem cell research occurred. Despite the traditional Buddhist opposition to abortion, however, and the fact that abortion for social reasons is illegal, South Korea has been called an "abortion paradise," and figures of more than 1.5 million abortions yearly are often quoted. This suggests there is unresolved dissonance between Buddhist teachings and practice on the moral status of embryonic life

source

*sigh*
If vetoed, we must just remember that it will come up again.

Of course he will veto.
No spoiled child likes to not get his way.

How many times has Bush used his Veto? How many times did CLinton use the Veto?

Spoiled child I think not.

What one has to do with the other, Ill never know. Vetoing a bill that clearly is supported by most of the two parties and most of US tells me that GW is becoming a sort of US version of Taliban.


States with many companies incorped within will soon have their own stem cell legislation that will make M'ulla Georgie look stupid(er). Im sure Delaware is considering a research center funded by all those drug companies incorped in the little state.

In order for a bill to pass it has to have majority vote right? Clinton vetoed how many times? That would mean that Clinton didn't agree with the majority of the Senate, which would also mean the majority of Americans.

He uses his first veto and he is a US Taliban? Get real and stop being paranoid.

Baldimo-Paranoid? you bet!. If Bush werent so damn dumb, Id really be afraid. I still dont get the point that comparing the number of vetoes from one pres to the next has anything to do with this entire point. Bushs own party is pretty much mostly for stem cell research, funded by govt money. The American public is supporting it ( with the exception of the anti-choice crowd). Even most Catholics are for it.
Lets accept the fact that sometimes we have to take calculated risks in research. Nothing is guaranteed and, if the research concludes successfully, we will probably find ways to (like the Koreans have done) keep tissue alive no matter what your preferred definition of life is.
GW has no right to occupy any moral highground cuz hes a scum sucking dirt bag who is using this to maintain a good ol boy populist , who prays every Sunday.

Hes too damn ignorant and too damn dumb to understand the issues that surround this research. EvenGOP Arlan Specter, who's now undergoing chemo for Hodgkins came out and called GW some unkind names.

Party position and politics of "newsbites" has nothing to do with whats the right thing to do. The research will find a way to, not only cure diseases, but to keepthe very embryos viable after harvesting the blastocysts. We already know how twinning occurs, as part of the research, they may find how to induce twinningand harvest the cells from the clone .
The anti-researchers in this matter are so damn uncreative and shortsighted in their own understanding. AND, on top of it, they wont let the research go on to even find out how to help restore health to otherwise terminal cases whose only crime was to have been born with a DNA defect, or worse, an inability for ones DNA to continue to repair itself by some "alarm clock" mechanism that triggers onsets of diseases like diabetes 2 and Alzheimers.
Bush, is the embodiment of the Taliban. Hes not adept at abstract thought and projection, so he makes these really dim decisions and then gloats about his stance.

I guess it was Dys who said once that
"If Clinton never existed, the GOP would have had to make him up". Clinton comparisons will carry this , otherwise poor to mediocre president for another 4 years. Screw the issue on its own merits, lets just dig up ole Bubba and make him the Pharisee.

I never could said that, it apears to be a complete sentence.

brrrrrr-ump-bdda-bump--tsshhhh

brrrrrr-ump-bdda-bump--tsshhhh

He isn't against the research he is against using embryos for the research. That isn't the same as banning the research. He has already said that many times. Let the private money fund the embryo research not taxpayer money.

Did anyone ever tell you that you are a really hateful person or is this just your "internet persona"?

I wonder if when abortion was first made legal people used the slippery slope argument that the babies would be used for medical experiment in the future because of the disregard for the little lives that they were.

Nope, thats pretty much me there slick.
No matter how you spread it, the Govt casts a long shadow over the entire fare. Why then is GW gonna veto if hes not against such research.

I'm not complaining about Clinton I'm looking at the comparison. I can't help it that you are not doing the same. Can you answer the question? How many times did Clinton use the veto? Does that make him a Taliban because he disagreed with the majority of the Senate and in turn the majority of the US?

It's relavent, so please try and answer the question.

38 and FDR used it like 190 and Grover Cleveland used it over 400, SFW? Lets tryt to focus on this issue and cut out the
"nyah nyah (insert something about Clinton here) Nyah Nyah".

The fact of the natter is somewhere out there the American public is realizing they got screwed. They hooked up with a bunch of people whose only focus seems to be to make more money for the bunch of people, but not the ones voting for them. And this weird attitude about things, winner takes all in everything, but that's not American politics, American politics has always been about getting a little something for everybody even the party on the outs.

This bunch in the Senate is starting to smell a little like a rubber stamp factory, even party people like a little thinking to go with the getting along to get along part. And here comes those same people hurling and whirling about stem cells when Nancy Reagan seemed to think that just maybe we should look at it a little more, those same people are the same people who way back when opposed blood transfusions, and internal medicine (Imagine being against surgery.....) and making vaccines was taboo too. Vaccines. God Almighty was pleaded with to call down His wrath upon such abominations, He did not answer His phone.

They want Terri Schiavo on continuous life support, but won't allow a dime of research into a therapy that might have saved her. Huh? And they drag the President off of his vacation and fly him eight hours up and back to sign some bogus bill, but when the Capitol is being evac-ed, they don't even drag him off his bicycle???

Joe(They are beginning to see what kind of wackjobs they elected)Nation

Joe, excellent and to the point.

Farmer(see Im not so hateful, its just these painful leech bites) Man