Bush set to veto stem cell bill

[Alex+R 0]

I just can't put a monetary value on life I guess.... maybe that's my problem, money isn't my top priority.

Very true, and as others have said, it's actually cheaper to keep a criminal in prison for life than execute them, all things taken into account.

I am also interested to know how people who support the death penalty can accept the high rate of error in these cases. They have the wrong guy a lot more frequently than you'd think.

What a barbaric concept of justice you must have to support this practice.

AND to think stem cell research constitutes murder at the same time. So often it's just a case of swallowing the party line (not accusing anyone on this board of this)

[KarenCee 3]

I just can't put a monetary value on life I guess.... maybe that's my problem, money isn't my top priority.

Very true, and as others have said, it's actually cheaper to keep a criminal in prison for life than execute them, all things taken into account.

I am also interested to know how people who support the death penalty can accept the high rate of error in these cases. They have the wrong guy a lot more frequently than you'd think.

What a barbaric concept of justice you must have to support this practice.

AND to think stem cell research constitutes murder at the same time. So often it's just a case of swallowing the party line (not accusing anyone on this board of this)

In my opinion this statement (in bold) is a favourite of conservative fundamentalists across the nation and elsewhere in this world, a legalistic way of hiding behind something not completely understood by the average person. As the above poster says...not accusing anyone on this board of being legalistic.

Edited July 22, 2006 by KarenCee

[pedroh 21]

I GLAD he vetoed it. Since when is it ok to experiment with human lives-especially those that are most vulnerable? You guys could care less about a PETA march to stop experimentation on animals but line up and protest when someone stands up for human life. It is a life and death issue. Those embryos shouldn't be there in the first place-people that have difficulty having children have no right to sacrifice innocent lives to fulfill their selfish need to have a biological child. There are many wonderful children needing homes.

Those are babies and I truely rejoice he protected life.

As someone who has fertility issues, unless you have personally "been in my shoes" you can't possibly understand what it's like. I've never had IVF but if and when I do, how does my desire to have a baby all of a sudden become relegated to selfishness? I agree there are lots of wonderful children needing home...but the adoption process here in the US is just as long and arduous as the VJ journey. How fair is that to those parentless children? I am by no means selfish for wanting to have a child with my husband. If adoption is our only option then we are open to that. However, I am surely not against trying to have one of our own. I have checked into adoption. It's more expensive than IVF and VJ put together!

ace13: Shouldn't Bush then make destroying said embryos illegal too? This is the fate of most of these embryos after all, a very small percentage of them will become the so called "Snowflake Children".

I would rather they be used to better mankind than incinerated.

Here again, you can't begin to state what is right or wrong here....its a personal judgment. However, as it always does with these threads, it becomes a religious debate and if this one continues it will surely become heated. To try and coerce - convince - a people to believe a certain way is when said beliefs take on the form of legalism, which the conservative fundamentalists are QUITE fond of.

ace13: Shouldn't Bush then make destroying said embryos illegal too? This is the fate of most of these embryos after all, a very small percentage of them will become the so called "Snowflake Children".

I would rather they be used to better mankind than incinerated.

I should be illegal. You can't better serve mankind by killing one segment to serve the other. It is wrong.

Legalism, here again.

People that do invetro know they are killing some of their babies. The doctor even tells them "Ms X, 8 out of the 10 eggs were fertilized successfully." HELLOOOO! That means there are 8 babies there. Of course this lady doesn't want 8 kids so she implants one this year-another in a few years and dumps the rest of them. It makes me really sad that people can feel so unattached to life they created and not feel bad about it.

Two wrongs have never made a right

It comes down to doctrine. You believe that as soon as a sperm and egg come together that is a person. Most people do not believe this, as it is only the very first step towards creating a human being. Couples going into IVF have the sperm and eggs to create life, but some other issue prevents them from having children. I believe it is better to create a one life out of 10 zygotes, than to create no life at all.

But as I said, it comes down to doctrine, so its really pointless to argue.

Note: I edited to say zygote, because that is what they have frozen, not embryos. "Embryo" is used to describe a unborn baby "after implantation".

Exactly. If the embryo never implants it cannot sustain life. Hence an early form of miscarriage. I've had a miscarriage...I know what it's like. If the embryos that are placed in the woman's uterus for POSSIBLE implantation are NEVER implanted, how then can it be considered as a life? It would depend on said implantation to ever develop INTO a baby so without that happening, it is merely embryonic material with the possibility of becoming life.

interesting opinion.. and I also thing its true.. I don't think (and I think several doctors think alike) when a sperm and an egg get together, a human life is instantly born.. I dont think its like a 'big bang' and bam! a human.. and also.. if the egg is never implanted within the uterus.. it can't grow, therefore theres not a life there, just genetic material..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I GLAD he vetoed it. Since when is it ok to experiment with human lives-especially those that are most vulnerable? You guys could care less about a PETA march to stop experimentation on animals but line up and protest when someone stands up for human life. It is a life and death issue. Those embryos shouldn't be there in the first place-people that have difficulty having children have no right to sacrifice innocent lives to fulfill their selfish need to have a biological child. There are many wonderful children needing homes.

Those are babies and I truely rejoice he protected life.

I disagree. Regardless of what anyone personally thinks about the morality (or lack of) of this particular issue I don't think he had any business using the veto in this manner.

6 years is rather late in the game to be making use of this power I think...?