Here Today... Gone To Hell!

House Defies Bush, Approves Stem Cell Bill

Published: 5/25/05

? ? ?
WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid called Wednesday for a swift vote on House-passed legislation to expand federal support of embryonic stem cell research and said President Bush was "wrong politically, morally and scientifically" for opposing the measure.

Echoing claims made by House supporters of the legislation, the Nevada Democrat said embryonic stem cell research holds the promise of helping millions afflicted with diabetes, Alzheimer's Disease and other illnesses.

He urged an "up-or-down vote," meaning one with no amendments allowed.

Reid made his comments on the day after the House approved legislation on vote of 238-154 - far less than the two-thirds support that would be needed to override a veto Bush has threatened.

"There's no chance it will become law," said Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., one of numerous abortion foes to oppose the House measure. "I don't know why the Senate would bother taking it up."

A companion Senate bill is sponsored by Sens. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa and Arlen Specter, R-Pa. It would lift Bush's 2001 restrictions on federal funding for new embryonic stem cell research. Senate opponents have threatened a filibuster, and it is not clear whether supporters could amass the 60 votes that would be needed to overcome it.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has not scheduled the measure for floor debate.

"The American people cannot afford to wait any longer for our top scientists to realize the full potential of stem cell research," said Harkin of Iowa, the bill's chief Democratic sponsor.

The Republican-controlled House's 238-194 vote on Tuesday stung some abortion opponents even though it fell far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. Such an action by Bush would be the first of his presidency.

Bush says he opposes the bill because it would open the way for federally funded research that could create life to destroy it.

Proponents say federal funding for the research on days-old embryos, using a process that destroys them, would accelerate the search for treatments and perhaps cures for diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. They say the embryos would have been discarded anyway.

Opponents dispute that, questioning any evidence that embryonic stem cell research will lead to cures. They say taxpayers should not be forced to finance science they see as an attack on unborn babies and Bush's "culture of life."

Bush on Tuesday called the House bill "a mistake."

Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., one of the Senate's staunchest opponents of abortion, said he was "disheartened" by the House's approval but pleased by Bush's veto threat.

"Government should encourage lifesaving research, but should focus on science that both works and is ethical," he said.

The bill's supporters said the Senate should weigh in despite the opposition.

"Let's have an up-or-down vote," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said in an interview.

The medical promise of embryonic stem cell research prompted several House members of both parties who oppose abortion rights to vote yes nonetheless. The moral obligation, they argued, rested on Congress to fund research that could lead to cures for debilitating illnesses.

"Who can say that prolonging a life is not pro-life?" said Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., who said she had a "perfect" pro-life record and whose mother-in-law had died the night before of Alzheimer's disease.

"I must follow my heart on this and cast a vote in favor," she said.

"Being pro-life also means fighting for policies that will eliminate pain and suffering," said Rep. James R. Langevin, D-R.I., who was paralyzed at 16 in a gun accident.

But Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas and other House members who voted against the bill said that even if this type of embryonic stem cell research were proven to cure disease, forcing taxpayers to foot the bill would still be wrong.

"In the life of men and nations some mistakes you can't undo," DeLay said as he closed the House debate. "If we afford the little embryo any shred of respect and dignity we cannot in good faith use taxpayer dollars to destroy them."

He and Bush urged passage of another measure which would fund research and treatment on stem cells derived instead from umbilical cord blood and adults.

That bill passed 430-1, with Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, the lone no vote.

__


Do you support this bill?

Bush says he opposes the bill because it would open the way for federally funded research that could create life to destroy it.

This guy is an absolute hypocrite, what a joke.

Many of these republicans are for stem cell once Reagan joined the diaper patrol years back.

Bush's opposition to it reminds me of PETA....

I do support this bill. That's not to say I support abortion, but as long as it remains legal, I think something good should come from it. By using stem cells, scientists say they can find cures for Alzheimer's, paralysis, diabetes, etc..

My grandmother had Alzheimer's disease. Now my aunt has it, and she's only 50 years old. I don't think a lot of people grasp the seriousness of this illness. It robs people of their memory and livelihood. By the time I was born my grandmother already had the illness, so I didn't get to witness the transition from her healthy state.  My aunt, however, was very energetic and outgoing. Now she walks really slow, barely speaks and she can't remember anyone. It's sad to see her like that, because it's not her.

It is a horrible thing to watch indeed. I have seen it with both sides of my family. It is slow, and very painful to watch. Very sad indeed.

I am not really in support of abortion, however I believe that it should be up to the woman to decide.

I believe there are great things that can come from stem cell research and I am for it.

I also believe that the long term use of chemicals in our diet plays a role in this and should be avoided at all costs.

As usual most people change their minds on things once it becomes part of their life (Nancy Reagan dealing with her ailing husband).

Anything that could cure disease I am for.

So absolutely I am for it.

Im for cloning also, If I could have a clone of myself and Id be able to get a new heart or a new set of lungs or a couple new sticks when my current sticks fail me, hell yeah!

If I can get some new stones cloned in case I ever get testicular cancer, That is awesome!

i dont want little souless lab made creatures runnin around though.


*Sticks are slang for legs by the way*

I don't like clowns....or midgets....

They freak me out.



 :P

Good.

I'm a Type 1 (Juvenile) Diabetic, and Stem Cells could potentially cure me. If I have to go over to America to get treatment, then I will. :)

as a catholic i oppose this, as well as abortion and gay marrige. the worlds goin down the drain. only a matter or time....

Here is a question for ya.

How does abortion affect your life directly?

How does gay marriage affect your life directly?

About as much as the Iraq war affects your life directly.

Tit for tat my man.? ;)

You should rethink your statement Mr Poor Analogy man.

It does affect my life because it is my tax money going foward to kill people around the world. So I have all the right as a hard working American tax-payer to speak up against the misuse of power with my dollars.

Gay marriage and abortion are personal issues brought into the public spotlight to take us away from the true issues facing this country.

Going to war and thousands upon thousands of people is a global issue that affects us all and our children as well. Since they will be paying for the war long after I'm dead.

Care to explain how Gay marriage or abortion affect you?

How does it make your life worse? Or better?

Answer: it doesn't. Mind your own fuckin' business.

@SLCPUNK

The next logical step after gay marriage is gay couples adopting children because they can't have any. But gay couples shall never have children not because I don't want them to, but because NATURE doesn't want them to. As for marriage, this is something to protect and support the family. And a family (by my standarts) is not a couple. For me, a family is a man and a woman able to produce FRESH BLOOD (= kids) and it's people RELATED to each other because they share the SAME BLOOD. Not gonna happen ever for gay couples, so they should not call themselves family and should not benefit from the special status of marriage. Gays have to accept that they are special - not by my standarts or those of the society, but by the standarts of NATURE.

Same goes for cloning. It's people fucking with nature, nothing else. The Nazis tried that 60 years ago already with "natural selection" and killing gays, retards, the sick, the jews and everything that didn't suit their idea of the "perfect human". Didn't work, did it? Today, cloning is based on even lower intentions: people don't even want to "upgrade" the human race anymore, they are just afraid to die because their lifes are so empty! That's all. But death is a part of life. People have to accept this, but they can't. So they start cloning their pets, then next they gonna clone themselves just so they have backup parts for their body and they can live longer. I understand the fears that drive those poeple to do that, but those people do not understand nature. And in fuckin with nature, people only fuck themselves.

Abortion? The more strangers you fuck, the higher the risk for "accidents" is. But if you are in a relationship with someone you love, have perpectives, faith and the guts to take responsibility in your life, then I think abortion is not the first option. I'm not saying "no sex before marriage", the point is: today at least 50% of the women who abort do it because it is more "convenient" than raising kids - and maybe it was an accident and the guy who is the father was a one night stand or the women rather want to focus on their career and everything. Does that justify abortion? Not for me. After a rape and if there's a higher than 50% risk that the child would be mentally retarded - yes. But in any other case - no. If you're old enough to fuck, then you're old enough to take the fucking responsibility.

But it's a social problem - kids grow up with having sex hammered in their head all the time. It's all around them, and it's a sport, a lifestyle and it's so fucking empty. A lot of the kids prefer to jerk of in front of a screen rather than going out and making social contact because they are disoriented and so fucking scared. And when they finally "score" and "get laid", not only do they have no idea WHAT they are doing - they don't even know WHY they do it!

So except for 12 year old kids who abort and 16 year old trailer park moms who already have three kids and their life behind them - what have we got? Instead of making love and giving their DNA to their kids so something of them can live and carry on, people fuck their own gender, fuck for fun and sport and then start cloning themselves, hoping to cure diseases in large parts caused by their own fucked up degenerated lifestyles.

Does that affect my life? Yes. Because I'm praying for those people. Every single one of them.

Finally, somebody with some sense.

Abortion: Taking life before it has a chance to develope. According to the church, live happens as soon as the egss fertalized. i know i know not everyones cathloic, but still, killing is wrong.

Gay marrige: Plz. Now gay marrige is an issue. Marrigie is a sacrament, given by the church. Church sees marrige as man and wife and a deliberate exclusion of procreation is no acceptable. Gays cant procreate, u figure it out.

OK, first you avoided my question.

You are forgetting that everybody has a different opinion on different issues. Although I am sure that you believe you hold the ultimate truth, you must face the fact plenty others will disagree with you.

So before you put your moral and religous views in the thread again, answer my question(s).

How does a woman choosing not to have a child affect YOUR life?

How does two men, or two women getting married affect YOUR life?

Answer the question, moral, and religous doctrine aside.

Thanks.

*****


Conny, it only affects your life because you choose to put them in your life.

Your post, just like the other one, was nothing but giving me your views on why it is WRONG. Not how it affects you. The fact is: it doesn't. Neither issue affect your lives.

 Maybe if you prayed for people just to be happy, with what makes them happy, it would not cause you unrest.

In other words, if we realize that people are different from us, not impose our beliefs on them (mind our own business) everything would be just fine.

My view on abortion is for the most part ,if the gilr didn?t want a kid she shouldn?t had unprotected sex.

Does it effect my life no .

Just piss?s me off when some who knows that they don?t want kids has unprotect sex and then
has an abortion.


As far as Gay I think that people should be with who ever they wan to be with .

And if they want to get married then more power to them.

It is my fuckin' business.? It's everybody's fuckin' business.

However, rather than trying to endlessly hammer out the details with you in a futile debate that goes nowhere, I'll just point one thing out.

Over the few years that I've read your posts on whatever issue, you're not afraid to turn to the U.S. Constitution for answers; especially if it supports your arguments.

Well - at least as far as the Constitution is concerned - you're out of luck pal.

Both abortion and gay marriage are issues that should be left up to the states.? Not the courts.

And if the government were to follow the law of the land and let the people decide on abortion and gay marriage, most states would overwhelmingly vote against both.

And you know it.

How do gang murders in the inner city affect your life on a daily basis? ?How does people dying of AIDS in Africa affect your life on a daily basis? ?How does global warming affect your life on a daily basis?

Somehow we care about these things. ?Just because something doesnt affect your life doesnt mean you shouldnt care about it or try and do something to stop it. ?In fact, I would think we have somewhat of an obligation if we think it is morally wrong.

haha, you crack me up.

Still did not answer my question.

I didn't say it wasn't any of "your business". I said if you minded your own, two gays getting married or a lady having an abortion would not get you all hot and bothered.

How does it affect your life?

How do gang murders in the inner city affect your life on a daily basis? ?How does people dying of AIDS in Africa affect your life on a daily basis? ?How does global warming affect your life on a daily basis?

Somehow we care about these things. ?Just because something doesnt affect your life doesnt mean you shouldnt care about it or try and do something to stop it. ?In fact, I would think we have somewhat of an obligation if we think it is morally wrong.

Gang murders, people dying of AIDS, global warming etc are not issues I am speaking out against and making judgements on.

Gay marriage, and abortion are issues that you guys are against. So I ask, how does it affect your life? Plain and simple...it does not.

You are under the assumption that all people consider gay marriage and abortion to fall under the same column as murder, AIDS etc? Are you serious?

You try to put it back in my lap with a piss poor analogy.

Yet, none of you guys have answered the simple question.

How does it affect your life? How does it make your life worse or better?

It doesn't. Straight up. Two gay men getting married affects my life no differently then does you.

A young woman you can not afford a child and (sadly) chooses abortion, does not affect me any more than it would affect you.

Mind your own business.

You may not like the analogy, but these things certainly affect us as much of many other things that we care about.  How does the bad employment practices of the guy in Florida affect you on a daily basis?  Didnt you find it necessary to try and fix it?  Is that because you are opposed to bad working conditions?

Certainly if you believe that a fetus is life, then it affects your life just as much as someone dying from AIDS in a different country.  In fact, probably more since abortion happens in the US.

As for Gay marriage, most would argue that by allowing Gay Marriage it degrades the institution of marriage, which many people are a part of.  That has a direct effect on lessening the sanctity of the overall institution of marriage that they are apart of. 

Certainly if you believe that a fetus is life, then it affects your life just as much as someone dying from AIDS in a different country.  In fact, probably more since abortion happens in the US.

How does it affect your life if somebody has an abortion in Kansas?

Answer: It does not.

AIDS is considered a disease that kills people around the world.

Abortion is a choice a woman has to a terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Different and can't be compared. What are you talking about?

Answer my question.

Dont' just say "they can affect you both as much." That is not answering my question.


As for Gay marriage, most would argue that by allowing Gay Marriage it degrades the institution of marriage, which many people are a part of.  That has a direct effect on lessening the sanctity of the overall institution of marriage that they are apart of

It degrades it how? This is the slippery slope argument and not accepted.

The institute is pretty much been degraded by the 50-60% divorce rate we already have in this country anyway.

How does this have a direct effect on lessening the "sanctity of the overall institution of marriage" ?

How does it affect you if two men get married in Florida? How does it affect you and your girlfriend if you decide to get married?

Does it mean your marriage, your vows (that you say) mean any less to one another? Or that your dedication to one another mean less?

Answer: No.

What if you think that a fetus is a human?  Then isnt that killing tons of people?

You really dont see the similarity?  It seems pretty darn similar to me.  Especially in the context we are talking about.

Actually it is.  I just dont think you understand or just dont like the answer.  Just because something doesnt affect you personally doesnt mean that you shouldnt care about it.  Why cant you understand this?  We all live in this world together, dont we have somewhat of an obligation to help others and do what we think is morally right?


How is this a slippery slope argument?  Regardless, sometimes slipery slopes are valid arguments.

You always talk about illogical arguments.  This argument is one that I have never understood and is clearly illogical.  Your response to people that want to protect the sanctity of marriage is to say that it ha already been degraded.  Shouldnt that mean that we shouldnt do something to degrade it more?  I would think if anything this means that we should go the other way and try to fix divorce, instead of using divorce as a means to justify degrading it more.

You clearly didnt read the last post.  Instead of writing it again: SEE Last Post.

Just a guess but are you (SLCPUNK ) one of them insane Liberals?  It sure sounds like it...

Actually it is.  I just dont think you understand or just dont like the answer.  Just because something doesnt affect you personally doesnt mean that you shouldnt care about it.  Why cant you understand this?  We all live in this world together, dont we have somewhat of an obligation to help others and do what we think is morally right?



You need to understand is caring about something and having something affect you, are two DIFFERENT things.

If Taxes are raised that affects you.

If a hail  storm causes damage to your car, that affects you.

If a girl has an abortion in Florida....that don't affect you.


You always talk about illogical arguments.  This argument is one that I have never understood and is clearly illogical.  Your response to people that want to protect the sanctity of marriage is to say that it ha already been degraded.  Shouldnt that mean that we shouldnt do something to degrade it more?  I would think if anything this means that we should go the other way and try to fix divorce, instead of using divorce as a means to justify degrading it more.

No, I talk about logical fallacies. Something you are good at.

You are not answering my question. You are trying to muddy the argument here. Which, ironically, is a logical fallacy. The argument is not if marriage is being degraded by gays, or our divorce rate, but if it affects your marriage, or your life. Which is does not.

You are unable to answer my question, because you know the truth is that gay marriage and abortion does not affect you (that is: change your life in anyway shape or form. "Caring" about something does not count as "being affected". Use a dictionary; and I'm sure as shit you don't lose any sleep over AIDS babies in Africa, or abortions either, so fuckin' spare me.) at all.

I can say that the high divorce rate in this country...does not affect me, or my marriage. Even though, by your words that it has degraded institute of marriage. Any rational person can see this.

Sure gay marriage, abortion and cloning doesn't affect my personal everyday life much - but it has a huge effect on the society that I'm living in - and so one way or the other it all comes back to me, indirectly affecting my life, and also having a huge effect on following generations.

I could not give a fuck about America's politics - it's not my fucking country. I could give a fuck about some sicko fucking little kids - it's not my fucking family. I could give a fuck about my neighbour dying off HIV - it's not my fucking disease. I could give a fuck about tsunamis, earthquakes and the rain forest - that's all a million miles away from where I live.

But that's not how it works. People not giving a fuck about anything is the whole problem in our society. Everyone sits and watch UNTIL it affects his/her personal life - but then it's too late.

SLC understands the indirect effect of taxes, but fails to see the indirect effect of other things.  Now tell me SLC, how has the money spent on the war affected you?  Has it raised your taxes?  Has the government spent money that otherwise would have been spent in a social program to you?  It is the same thing, but as usual you remain stubborn.

slcpunk - does soldiers dying in iraq have a direct effect on you?

i know you're just still holding alot of anger and anxiety over last november's election. but don't worry, you only have to deal with bush for three and half more years. and then hillary will be prez, so you'll be able to relax a little.

Again you stick to your same BS thought process.

Abortion and gay marriage is not under the same category as WAR. It may be to you, because you are a twisted person. But to me, waging war on another country and a woman's right to have an abortion is not in the same category.

Get it?

Yoiu refuse to seperate the two, because if you would , your bullshit analogy would fall apart.

And if you wanna be smart about it....Yes the "war" in Iraq is a complete waste of our tax payer money and I have a right to speak up about it. You know how many senior citizens we could provide medical care for with that money? How much more money we could pump into public education for children?

What does two gay men getting married take away from society? Nothing, nada, zip. Only people like you lose sleep over two same-sex partners dedicating their love and life to one another. But, besides your sleep pattern, it does not take away from spending on education or medicine for the old.

Again. You two guys are telling me that you lay awake just tormenting about the AIDS deaths in Africa and abortions performed in this country? haha, yea sure you do. You two are so full of shit it is amazing. You sit and call me a bleeding heart liberal, yet pull that out as soon as you feel the need.

What deep morals you men have. To protect the unborn from a legal activity and to protect the institute of marriage from all the gays who are trying to destroy it. What a couple of bullshit, bleeding-hearts-when-you-need-it-blow-hards. Gimmie a fuckin' break.

You think blowing up civilians is just "collateral damage" but gay men getting married is destroying the moral fabric in this society?

You both need to get your fuckin' heads checked!!!!!

I've already addressed your question last night, but you don't read (well).

No anger....

As usual you aren't to answer my questions so you drop the discussion down a few notches and say childish things.

To put you in perspective:

(http://tinypic.com/5lcjyc)

You are ridiculous, you just cannot follow an argument.  You went all over the place in your post, so let me clear some stuff up.

We never said the war doesnt affect you.  We never said that we sit in bed all night awake over AIDS in Africa.  What we did say is that they all have an indirect effect on us, albeit some greater than others.  You simply cant follow the argument, which is completely logical and valid to anyone that is literate.  Your only reaction is to compare war to AIDS, and war to homosexuality and say that War is far worse.  Well no shit.  We are not saying it isnt.  But that was never the question.  The question was whether it affects us at all.  You were claiming that we had no valid reason to worry about that stuff (abortion and homosexuality) because it doesnt affect us on a daily basis.  The answer to misguided statement is that it has no less of an effect on our daily lives then the war that you bitch about every single day on this board.  In addition, regardless of whether it has an effect on our daily lives, it doesnt mean that we shouldnt do something to try and cure it.  If we only tried to fix things that affected our daily lives, then millions would die and starve and the world would be a complete shit hole.  Hopefully, that was more clear for you.  One last thing, we never said that people dying was collateral damages and less important than Gay Marriage and the moral fabric of society.  More you to insinuate that we said that is offensive, and shows that either you are completely misguided and dont know how to read, or that you stoop to low levels and misconstrue our arguments when you feel that you are losing.

We never said that we sit in bed all night awake over AIDS in Africa.

Nah....really? Ya don't say?  ::)


 Your only reaction is to compare war to AIDS, and war to homosexuality and say that War is far worse.

You can't be this stupid.

 You were claiming that we had no valid reason to worry about that stuff (abortion and homosexuality) because it doesnt affect us on a daily basis.

Again, I repeat, worrying about something does not mean it affects your life. Like I said before, I am just sure you two lay around worrying about all these issues you cling to in these arguments. (Hint: it's called sarcasm)

 The answer to misguided statement is that it has no less of an effect on our daily lives then the war that you bitch about every single day on this board.

And you don't condon it everyday on this board? Pot meet black.

 Hopefully, that was more clear for you.  One last thing, we never said that people dying was collateral damages and less important than Gay Marriage and the moral fabric of society.

huh?

**********

You still never explained how two men getting married affects your life or affects your integrity when it comes to marriage.

The high divorce rate does not make me hold my marriage to be sub-par. I view it with respect and hard work. Other people's failures have nothing to do with my marriage. So explain to me how two gay men (no moral bullshit here) affect you personally.

Answer the same for abortion. Take into considertation that not all people hold your beliefs to be the truth, when you answer (if you ever) answer my question.

Worrying does not count as being affected. No cop outs.

Im done with this discussion.? I tried one last time and I couldnt get through.? Oh, well.

abortions effect me in a very positive way.

the typical people that have abortions are either liberals, low income people, teenagers, or all of the above.

and i'd prefer to have less of these people around. it helps keep republicans in office, and helps keep the crime rate down.

republican polititions LOVE the abortion issue and will never outlaw it. they get all the religious people motivated to vote, and it keeps the population of liberals down. it's a win-win.

slcpunk - do you think it's ok to kill a baby as soon as it's born (assuming you do it in a pain-free manner)?