Bush Promises to Veto Senate Stem Cell Bill
by A nation that elects to kill it's unborn, is not a nation at all.
I've heard these words spoken at many of the Right to Life walks and rallies I've participated in. Each year, 1.3 million abortions are performed in the United States.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute reported in 2001, that 57% percent of these are performed at a gestational age of less than nine weeks, 20% at 9-10 weeks and 10% at 11-12 weeks.
At twelve weeks in my pregnancy, I had an ultrasound completed in which I saw the tiny heartbeat of my baby, rapidly beating inside of my belly. It was fascinating.
Although the life growing inside of me looked nothing like the baby I delivered twenty-six weeks later, I knew the tiny embryo developed into a fetus and was a human life from the moment of conception.
Unfortunately, Congress doesn't feel the same way about America's unborn.
A Senate bill that was created to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research was passed 63-34 on Wednesday, however President Bush vowed to veto the Senate stem cell bill.
"This bill crosses a moral line that I and many others find troubling," he said. "If it advances all the way through Congress to my desk, I will veto it."
The Senate bill is similar to the one the President disapproved last year in which he used the only veto of his presidency thus far.
The bill was intended to release the restrictions that have been placed upon stem cell research, but it has fallen short of the veto-proof margin that is needed to enact the law over the President's objections.
Sentors Tom Harkin of Iowa and Claire McCaskill called for the unleashing of America's sicentists as it's "not everday we have the opportunity to heal the sick."
President Bush and many conservatives believe the research destroys human life with the destruction of human embryos.
Many are in favor of adult stem cell research, as I've written about before, but scientists claim adult cells are not as promising as embryonic stem cells.
The more I think about it, the embryos aren't promising either.
They'll never be born to become teachers, lawyers, doctors, scientists, postal workers, stay-at-home parents, bloggers, journalists, senators or even President, when they're being destroyed every day.
Contributing Editor Dana J. Tuszke also blogs at The Dana Files.
Posted In
XML Feed Recent Comments
"Legoer" on post Unplug and Entertain your kids to win a $250 LEGO® Gift Card or 1 of 8 other weekly prizes!
Soothing tricks that
worked for us on post Enter for a chance to win a $1,000 Visa gift card from Aquaphor!
worked for us on post Enter for a chance to win a $1,000 Visa gift card from Aquaphor!
Whenever anyone
addresses
exactly what
you said on post Sarah Palin on Oprah: I Prefer The Makeover Shows, I Think
addresses
exactly what
you said on post Sarah Palin on Oprah: I Prefer The Makeover Shows, I Think
BlogHer Conferences
- Home
- About Us
- BlogHer Community
- Conferences
- BlogHer Network
- Special Offers
- Contact Us
Follow us on Twitter:
@blogher @bloghersupport @blogherdeals
Become a Facebook Fan
© Copyright 2009 BlogHer | Terms of Service
Comments
Confused...
I know you know that we differ on this topic.
Even so, I think it's misleading to post a headline about stem cells followed by a quote about "killing the unborn." Cells are not unborn anything. They're cells. They normally get thrown out. The alternative to harvesting stem cells is not growing babies. The alternative is nothing.
I think that sadly, this is an issue that politicians are using to pander to constituents instead of looking at the science and reality of the situation. I don't honestly believe that any of them thinks it destroys life. But it does make a great sound byte to rally the troops.
http://mom-101.blogspot.com
http://coolmompicks.com
We find it, you flaunt it.
Liz, It's okay to disagree,
Liz,
It's okay to disagree, but I'm disturbed by the comment that my heading is misleading -- followed by your statement that embryonic stem cells are just that, cells.
They are not "just cells". These cells are what make up a human life. A human life like the baby you are carrying.
The only difference is that you want to keep your child. But when a child is not wanted, it reverts back to just a scientific research experiment.
You're right, it is sad that this is an issue that politicians are pandering. If they had a little more respect for life instead of scientific research, maybe we wouldn't have to worry about the destruction of human embryos.
Dana from The Dana Files.
"If they had a little more
"If they had a little more respect for life instead of scientific research..."
Scientific research that's designed to preserve life. It's not astronomy, it's medicine.
I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me. I just wanted to provide another side to the discussion here.
http://mom-101.blogspot.com
Killing embryos so as to
Killing embryos so as to harvest their cells, even if it provides a benefit for someone else, is a sinister and bankrupt practice. I shouldn't have to convince you, that should be something you already know.
Dana from The Dana Files.
Now, don't hate on
Now, don't hate on astronomy... ;)
mothergoosemouse
In the case of this bill...
Are the embryos in this case not going to be destroyed one way or the other? I thought that was the difference with this bill.. it was intending to use embryos left over from IVF that are going to be destroyed.
ThreeSeven... not just a number anymore
Whether they are destroyed
Whether they are destroyed one way or the other isn't the point.
I don't condone IVF either. And by simply allowing the research to be done on existing embryos opens the door to cultivating more. It's naive to think that won't happen as a result if this bill was approved.
Dana from The Dana Files.
Actually I think it is the point.
Is the life not being terminated in one way or another? Is that not what is being objected to?
I think that saying allowing this research opens the door to cultivating more embryos is a huge leap. You may think my viewpoint is naive, but I think that viewpoint is alarmist.
ThreeSeven... not just a number anymore
Context
Presuming the issue is free of context and is a simple "life or death" issue strikes me as naive.
Right or wrong, fertility assistance exists. Perhaps we should ban that.
If fertility assistance exists and they have excess embryos, surely a consequence of practical techniques to ensure the success of the fertility treatment, then what should be done with them? Who do they belong to? The parents? The clinic? The doctors? Us? The government?
Should we pay to continue supporting them until they can be used to bring another life into the world? Perhaps. Can we afford that? Probably not. Who pays? The parents? The clinic? The government?
If we can't afford to continue support for them and we don't have donors who want them what do we do? Destroy them? Many people believe this is murder.
If they're going to be destroyed anyway, due to other reasons, which are perhaps beyond our control, should we not try to use their deaths to help other people? People living with despair and grief? People living with crippling diseases? Isn't trying to help people the Christian thing to do?
And what about the comparison between the rights of the unborn cells, the unborn child if you will, and the rights of those living with crippling diseases? Who has more right to life?
And who am I to make that decision?
Who is anyone?
Jim Heivilin
cells, or saving a real human life?
Dana,
You and I usually disagree on politics, but this one I really have to differ on. Don't take it from me, though.
There's a great site called StemPac that has real, moving stories of parents, husbands, wives and children who support stem cell research to save the lives of their loved ones
http://www.stempac.com/stories/
to me, helping people in full swing shows the real value of human life. Not a bunch of cells in a petri dish.
Morra,Yes, we disagree. I
Morra,
Yes, we disagree. I believe that embryos are human life and you do not.
Stories of families who support stem cell research does not justify destruction of human life.
There is nothing that can justify it. It's morally wrong to destroy the unborn.
An embryo is real human life. It's time we take off the blinders and realize this.
Dana from The Dana Files.
I wish Bush would sign it
I admit that I have the proverbial dog in the fight. I have a child with a disability that could be affected by research. Please consider the good that could be done. If these embryos are just destroyed what is the point? Destruction, or the potential for curing disease? I know not a simple answer, but nothing in life is simple. But we must do something or other countries will surpass us and then what?
I understand where you are
I understand where you are coming from, but there are other ways to research that do not involve destruction of embryos. Adult stem cell research, for one.
Dana from The Dana Files.
Anyone that reads my blog
Anyone that reads my blog knows where I stand on the abortion issue as a general rule. They also know that I am not a "pro-lifer" either...but here's the thing. Simply because the abortions are being allowed, does that make it right to profit from it? For me, the larger picture has always been finding a way to make it possible to find a way to make women feel like they don't NEED to have the abortion. Education, better access to birth control, self-esteem classes for young men and women....it's a larger issue.
Saying that the abortions are being done anyway and shouldn't we just do the research because...doesn't that overlook the underlying issue? Because what happens when one day that well dries up? Where do you turn then?
Stem Cell research
With all due respect, this is not an abortion issue, it's a medical research issue. These are not stem cells from fetuses.
The link that Morra posted above is fantastic: worth a look.
http://mom-101.blogspot.com
Embryonic stem cell research
Embryonic stem cell research and abortion are both destroying lives. They just happen to be two different procedures with the same out come: death.
I know that liberals hate to see the word death in print because it's harsh, but so is abortion and ESCR.
Dana from The Dana Files.
The issue is not whether
The issue is not whether these embryos are just laying around waiting for the trash heap. If embryonic stem cell research is allowed, research facilities will create thousands, eventually millions, of new embryos to dissect, test and use in experiments. There will be no restrictions.
These debates are important because we need to think about what will happen in the long term.
If we declare embryos as nothing more than cells, at what point in their development will they be considered as something more? If it is ok to experiment on embryos, will it be ok to implant them in a willing subject, develop them a little more and experiment on them in the womb? Would it be ok to introduce mutated genes into them, allow them to develop, and see what happens?
For every succesful scientific breakthrough, there are many, many failed results. WHile this might not be a problem in physics or chemistry, in biology there are serious ethical considerations.
Scientific curiosity, without ethical bounds, can quickly run ahead of our own sanity.
Wheat Among Tares
"The issue is not whether
"The issue is not whether these embryos are just laying around waiting for the trash heap. If embryonic stem cell research is allowed, research facilities will create thousands, eventually millions, of new embryos to dissect, test and use in experiments. There will be no restrictions."
I'm not sure how you've reached this conclusion. The bill allows for the use of embryos under specific conditions (ie. embryos discarded and scheduled for destruction). How does this translate to "no restrictions"?
ThreeSeven... not just a number anymore
My point is that the
My point is that the restrictions will slowly be rolled back until there are few, if any.
We already have a protocol that allows the use of already established lines of embryonic stem cells. The veto earlier in the presidency was to limit it to those lines and prohibit creating new embryos.
Now, scientists want to widen the scope and have fewer restrictions than they currently have. The drive to know more, scientifically, will always want to further the scope of research. If there are no restrictions and ethical guidelines, then we will have a free-for-all.
Wheat Among Tares
Terri, you are right. What
Terri, you are right. What is to stop scientists and politicians from cultivating more embryos? Nothing. It is morally and ethically wrong.
Dana from The Dana Files.
The law
"What is to stop scientists and politicians from cultivating more embryos? Nothing."
The law would stop them, surely, as it does now?
ThreeSeven... not just a number anymore
I'm sorry, I was referring
I'm sorry, I was referring to more cultivation if this bill were enacted allowing the research to be done.
Dana from The Dana Files.
I encourage all of you to
I encourage all of you to visit Abort73.com. The same "cells" that would be destroyed by research are called embryos. Embryos and fetuses are also known as babies. I hate to break it down in such a manner, but it seems there isn't any other way.
At Abort73.com, watch the first and second videos. Please be aware the second is very graphic.
Many of you will come back to me and say that embryonic stem cell research and abortion are two different things, but really, they both destroy lives. Millions of lives.
Here is a fact from the site:
If you can watch this video and not bat an eyelash, not change your stance, than I am truly afraid. Afraid for me, for you, for our children, for our world.
Through BlogHer, I've learned to be open and listen to others. I've learned to be an activist; to stand up for what I believe in.
I'm truly grateful for this forum, yet I feel like the outsider when it comes to this topic.
After you've watched the second video, feel free to comment here or e-mail me at thedanafiles [at] hotmail [dot] com as well.
Thank you for your comments here, as well, I do appreciate the responses.
My answer...
Yes.
That's my answer to the question posed above.
Yes I believe is justifiable to cultivate embryonic cells in an effort to save living people stricken with terminal diseases. People with Parkinson, diabetes, alzheimers, and endless forms of cancer are our daughters, our parents, our best friends.
I don't like the word death, it's true. I'd rather these people not die if they don't have to.
http://mom-101.blogspot.com
I'm truly sad to read that.
For the record, the question you're answering yes to is "Is it justifiable to kill one person in order to spare someone else from disease?"
I'm truly sad to read that. It's okay to murder one life to save another?
I'm appalled. But I suppose that doesn't matter. As long as you're allowed to kill babies, who cares, right?
I don't like the word death,
I'd rather these embryos not die if they don't have to either.
Dana from The Dana Files.
and this is where all debate becomes
impossible
"As long as you're allowed to kill babies, who cares, right?"
Apart from all the leaps from cells to fetuses to babies that are made here, which I do believe are morally and ethically debatable issues (and have been for centuries) it is this particular leap--from prochoicer to wanton babykiller--where I get completely turned off by this discussion. When one individual, who as far as I can see voices dissent in calm and respectful terms, is basically accused of being a "baby killer" then there is no point in pursuing the topic. At least not in this space.
Come on. How is it possible to have a discussion, even a heated one, when the terms disintegrate like this?
I was not calling Mom-101 a
I was not calling Mom-101 a baby killer. I meant it in the collective sense of those who support embryonic stem cell research because that's what this research does: It kills human babies. I can't stress that enough. It is ignornant to make excuses by claiming these are just cells.
I apologize for my remark, I can see how it was offensive.
This is a controversial subject, one that has caused much grief in politics and religion. Those of us who respect life, oppose abortion and ESCR have every right to defend to defend it.
Dana from The Dana Files.
It really is a question of
It really is a question of where do you draw the line. Quite a few of you seem to think that "the law" will step in and stop it from getting out of hand, but where does "out of hand" start? Who gets to decide that? When does it become unacceptable? Whose life isn't worth saving? What measures aren't acceptable to take to save one more human life?
Each one of us has to make a choice. We make a choice when we decide whether we're okay with the idea that calling an aborted child a non-life is all right. This is an issue tied directly to abortion. The women who chose to have abortions do so well with in their rights and should not be belittled for doing so, however, extending that into medical research that has the potential to grow into something much more heinous is not something I am comfortable looking away from.
When a woman choses to excersise her right to reproductive freedom, that's one thing. I may not be comfortable with it, but I will respect her privacy. When someone steps into an entirely different moral arena I will step up and speak out. Playing God is not something we should ever get comfortable with, no matter who we think we're saving...and yes, I have given a lot of thought to the "What if it were my children?" end of this debate. I wouldn't want my child saved at the cost of the moral fiber of our society. I'm not comfortable taking that leap. Not now, not ever.
Death. Nobody likes the
Death. Nobody likes the word. I have a secret though...nobody gets out alive.
It is natural to want to cure the ills of this world and end suffering, but it must not be at the cost of our principles and the value of human life.
Also, while there are many scientists that have altruistic desires to devleop cures, let's not kid ourselves--in the end, it's all about the money that stands to be made by bio-tech companies.
We have all kinds of miraculous drugs and treatments that many never get simply because they can't afford them. If that's the case now, why should we pursue something that has enormous ethical implications only to further the careers and fortunes of bio-tech companies?