Yay! You win the "SanChonino's favorite blogger" prize! Your commemorative t-shirt is in the mail

sweet action I am excited.

The majority of Americans support embryonic stem cell research. Bush vetoed this same legislation last year. 37 house Republicans did vote for thes bill so this not strictly on party lines. The senate is close to having enough votes to overide the veto but I don't think the house does.

There are 500,000 pre-embryos frozen in this country and more being added to that number every year. I agree that instead of destroying them, let them be used for research. The bill requires that the stem cells come from embryos that would be discarded so the idea of women being paid to abort children for research is bogus. There may not have been substantive advances from this research YET. They have been working with a very limited number of already existing stem cell lines. There is so much potential that they might find cures for Juvenile Diabetes, Alzheimers and Parkinson's.

yep and too much masturbating might grow hair on your palms, or make you go blind.

But you failed to mention that the research is not illegal, that these "500,000 pre-embryos frozen in this country and more being added to that number every year" don't have to go to waste. They simply need to find someone else to pay for it. I really wish people would stop trying to portray this as Bush trying to stop the use of these "500,000 pre-embryos frozen in this country and more being added to that number every year" when that is not what he is doing, he is simply refusing to federaly fund it.

yep and too much masturbating might grow hair on your palms, or make you go blind.

Do you know this from experience? lol/jk

But you do have to admit, if he could stop it entirely, he would. Otherwise he wouldn't label it "unethical" and "wrong". People portray him that way because of what he's said, and his blanket pronouncements of the "sin" of stem-cell research make him an easy target.

Yes, he would. But you can't try and convict someone on their intent.

Truthfully, I feel this falls in an ethical grey area. Were this the 1940's, would we be using stem cells from Holocaust victims because they would be wasted anyway? Hard to say whether the ends justify the means here, especially when we are speaking of "potential", rather than REALIZED successes.

For those who believe, that is what it is. But perhaps we have become so accustomed to getting our wants when we want them, that we now have to vilify people for having ethics and morals that we do not necessarily agree with. Therefore, only the unethical and immoral can be seen to be pure of heart.

You're doing the exact same thing you're (in blanket terms) accusing me of in each post you've made here - first, that I'm not a believer, and that you believe that you're moral and ethical and someone with a different set of morals and ethics is inherently immoral and unethical. And I resent you for making such blanket statements.

Don't vilify those who don't agree with you, as you have here, if you're going to demand that others not do the same.

This is why I consider it a grey area, dr. Because there are so many unanswered questions. Lemme give you a for instance: if our 4 month old baby was dying and we knew we could get an organ transplant from an aborted fetus to save his life, I wouldn't flinch. Not for one second. And I wouldn't feel guilty about it either. And those are the kinds of questions many proponents are asking.

I have neither condemned or vilified those who do not agree with me. I am presenting my side, period. I made no judgement call on anyone's position. ANd in the case of Bush, I mentioned no names, nor called any. I merely pointed out that if he did not use the terms attributed to him, then he would be a hypocrite, or worse, unethical and immoral for playing politics and using a life vs non-life issue to do it with.

I dont see how you can say I have singled anyone out since I have stated both times "for those who believe", and the reference was not to a religion, faith or creed, but to when life begins (see response #9). If you do believe that life begins at conception, then yes, you can feel guilty for supporting it. I made no such claim, instead saying that "For a person that believes life begins at conception".

I have made no secret of my belief of when life begins at conception, nor do I condemn those who do not believe as I do. But I find it very ironic that "we" (note the term - not you - not him - not her - WE) demand that our politicians be in essence - hypocrites. That one (politician) would be so shallow as to actually allow his morals and ethics interfere with performing his duties of office.

That's what would be in the press if he didn't veto it. "Bush is a hypocrite!" "Bush Unethical and Immoral." "Bush becomes baby-killer." "Bush mistakes stem cells for glass of water." The press hates him, no matter what he does. I love him. I just want him to go somewhere where he can no longer have contact with the rest of humanity. I think that would be best for all parties.

you mean like bush

i believe that qualifies a vilifing someone who doesn't agree with you

I don't have to admit anything cause I am not Bush so I do not know exactly what he is thinking but then neither does anyone else on this site. He probably would, who knows, but that is not what we are talking about. I am not gonna condemn a person for what I think he may do. We are talking about vetoing stem cell research funding. He refuses to use Federal Funding for it, I'm fine with that. Those who would benefit from this (Pharmaceutical companies) have enough money to pay for the research.