"The president does not believe it's appropriate to put an end to human life for research purposes," Snow said. "That's a line he will not cross."

...unbelievable how uneducated this guy is.

6/20/2007 5:04:35 PM

way to post a statement without a link or anything else but a comment about someone ELSE'S education

6/20/2007 5:15:52 PM

i'll link for him

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19333824/

6/20/2007 5:16:51 PM

how the fuck is it ending a life if theres not even a child being born

6/20/2007 5:19:25 PM

the president believes that hundreds of thousands of 5 day old frozen blastocysts sitting in fertility clinics could all some day be "adopted" and grown into snow-flake babies

or, if not, you know, thawed out and thrown away. which ever...

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 5:24 PM. Reason : ,]

6/20/2007 5:21:25 PM

Quote :

"Pushing back against the Democratic-led Congress, President Bush vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have eased restraints on federally funded embryonic stem cell research."

I think the fact that it's federally funded research is a bigger problem for the GOP than the actual research itself. Keep in mind, Stem-cell research is not illegal.

6/20/2007 5:32:13 PM

uh, so then why did tony snow say this

Quote :

"The president does not believe it's appropriate to put an end to human life for research purposes"

yeah...being fiscally conservative is a pretty big priority for this admin....errrrr wait

6/20/2007 5:36:59 PM

But the insinuation here is that Bush is completely opposed to stem-cell research in America. If that were the case, why wouldn't he put a bill through congress to ban stem-cell research altogether. I'm not saying his opposition to the idea isn't influencing him to veto this funding bill, but don't make it sound like it's ONLY because he thinks it kills babies.

6/20/2007 5:41:06 PM

Quote :

"f that were the case, why wouldn't he put a bill through congress to ban stem-cell research altogether"

Quote :

"don't make it sound like it's ONLY because he thinks it kills babies."

why not? that is the reason. seriously, it's hard to believe, i know. but it is

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 5:45 PM. Reason : ,]

6/20/2007 5:44:13 PM

you know guys, when presidents make laws in congress

6/20/2007 6:23:05 PM

Quote :

"I think the fact that it's federally funded research is a bigger problem for the GOP than the actual research itself. Keep in mind, Stem-cell research is not illegal."

like ^^ said, it sounds like GWB equates stem-cell research to murder, and yet he seems to be happy to allow it to continue outside of federal funding. If he is so opposed to it, why doesn't he introduce a bill into congress to outlaw it completely?

..... it's simply amazing to me that in 6.5 years, Bush has only bothered to veto 3 bills form Congress - 2 on stem cell research and 1 for war funding. and yet, of course, was it just last week he is now blaming the new Democratic Congress for out of control spending?

6/20/2007 6:55:19 PM

This is the problem with religion in politics. I guess it is ok to blow up people in Iraq but not ok to use 5 day old fetuses to possibly save the lives of 1000's of Americans.

Human fetuses are not something special, sacred, or unique. It is just a biological process. 1,000,000,000's of babies have been born.

It is just a bunch of DNA and living cells. I do not think fetuses can be people until they are viable independent of a machine or the mother.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 11:28 PM. Reason : l]

6/20/2007 11:27:56 PM

these aren't fetuses we're talking about anyway, they're five day old blastocysts...literally 70-100 cells...

but, yeah, i agree with what you're sayin'

6/20/2007 11:29:57 PM

yeah good point they are still embryo's at that point. Speaking of fetuses and embryos though I have a catholic friend who is firmly against abortion. Given the hypothetical situation that his girlfriend was raped by some thug walking back to her car from the bar and impregnated still would not support an abortion.

Last summer though it was ok one time when he forgot to wrap his tool for his girlfriend to take the morning after pill. Yet if 2 weeks down the line she came back and said she was pregnant he would be a father right now. I do not really understand the logic.

6/20/2007 11:49:04 PM

i mean at least abortion people kinda have a point to lean on...i'm all for this stem shit though...full steam ahead!

6/21/2007 12:08:11 AM

we need to launch preventative wars against countries that have state-funded stem cell research.

because, y'see.... if left unchecked, their technology will outpace ours, thereby giving their nation an economic advantage that could be used for a number of things... including buying WMD's or explosive backpacks.

we gotta protect our national interests.

6/21/2007 12:47:41 AM

Quote :

"the president believes that hundreds of thousands of 5 day old frozen blastocysts sitting in fertility clinics could all some day be "adopted" and grown into snow-flake babies"

weapons of mass destruction FTW.....?

or better yet, Iraq's involvement in 9/11 FTW....?

or even better
'Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again'

I can't even believe there are republicans still supporting him

6/21/2007 4:29:19 AM

Bush is wrong on this issue--and I disagree with his positions on a number of other issues, too.

6/21/2007 11:07:58 AM

^I think most republicans stopped supporting him a while back. This whole stem-cell issue is rediculous. Especially with the latest findings in regard to diabetes and blindness, not to mention cancer, parkinson's disease, and obviously spinal cord injuries.

6/21/2007 11:12:32 AM

now, i'm anti-abortion, but this is retarded, they are gonna be destroyed anyways.... might as well use them....

honestly, farther in the future, you will have the option of collecting stem cells from a developing fetus with no damage to bank for later organ / tissue replacement....

(btw we can already obtain stem cells this way with no perceivable harm to the fetus)

6/21/2007 11:12:34 AM

I really feel that stem cell research is the way to new medical breakthroughs. I am also prochoice. i have more of a problem with our govt spending any more money, on anything really, than I do with stem cell research. Let the private sector handle this, and lets use aborted fetuses, and just not throw them away, just dont let the mother profit bc it was used for research.

Our finances are a mess. In a time of war we should be making sacrifices, but instead we just keep on spending. Bush is an idiot, but he was right about this veto, but for the wrong reasons. Id rather them cut the medicare drug bill, and put it towards this research, but once you give out teh freebies, its hard to take them back.

6/21/2007 11:15:24 AM

^^

Quote :

"now, i'm anti-abortion"

wow there's still people left out there. No offense my roommate is anti-choice too. I HATE the whole "pro-life" BULLSHIT. It's not pro-life, because then you'd have to say "pro-death". To be logical you'd have to say "pro-choice and anti-choice." That's exactly what the argument is about. Whether women can choose, or not.

^agree, bush is an idiot, but he may have been right on this veto. The private sector is the way to go sometimes.

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 11:19 AM. Reason : .]

6/21/2007 11:17:13 AM

plenty of people are pro-life...until their teenage daughter gets knocked up

plenty of people are pro choice...but it doesn't go both ways cause if your parents aborted you you wouldnt be alive to have that choice

i wish more stupid teenage bitches would CHOOSE adoption

6/21/2007 11:18:07 AM

^ I still hate the whole "pro-life" title. It's stupid. Everyone is "pro-life". The issue is CHOICE. So it's anti-choice, or pro-choice. The republicans just want to hide the fact that they want to control what a women can and cannot do.

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 11:21 AM. Reason : .]

6/21/2007 11:20:04 AM

who cares, its just a label

thats almost like saying "i hate the whole 'black' label...they're descendants of africa living in america we should call them 'african-americans'"

6/21/2007 11:20:44 AM

^ It's different. The terms have two sides specifically. Anti choice/Pro choice. That is logically the exact issue. Whereas with black, you can't make the same comparison.

6/21/2007 11:22:49 AM

if people are so concerned about the label, dont have sex and get pregnant and then kill your fetus

if you're more worried about a label than being a responsible adult...

6/21/2007 11:23:14 AM

^ People should use protection and abortion should be a last resort, but in no way should the government EVER tell a women what she can or cannot do with her body in regard to having a child.

6/21/2007 11:24:14 AM

I'm against abortion for the most part, but as long as its going on, they might as well make use of it. there is too much potential in stem cells to just ignore it.

Quote :

"EVER tell a women what she can or cannot do with her body in regard to having a child. "

when it's obvious a woman is using abortion as a form of birth control, something should be done.

The gov tries to tell me what I can do with my body all the time....difference is, i'm not taking someone else's life with my decisions.

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 11:26 AM. Reason : .]

6/21/2007 11:24:30 AM

^^if people dont want the "pro choice" label (which i still juts think is a meaningless semantics issue when going from pro choice or pro life or anti choice, etc)...then have a kid and put it up for adoption

^definitely...course this is america...we grow enough food for the whole world and we waste a lot of it...fitting we do the same with aborted fetuses

6/21/2007 11:25:20 AM

^^ First of all abortion isn't "killing anything" when it's done early enough in the first trimester. Second of all 99 percent of people probably are NOT using abortion as a form of birth control. I obviously agree with you, abortion should NEVER be used as a form of birth control, but i still think the option should be open for certain scenarios.

^You're saying people should have babies and give them up for adoption, rather than having an abortion right away? That's pretty fucked up man. There's already enough kids in america without homes, and the world for that matter, there shouldn't have to be more.

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 11:32 AM. Reason : .]

6/21/2007 11:31:36 AM

whats even more fucked up is you saying whatever to convince yourself that aborition isnt "killing anything"...but i'm pretty fucked up for suggesting adoption? lolz

and i am FOR this research btw...if the abortions already occur, might as well make use of the fetuses for something productive

6/21/2007 11:33:25 AM

Quote :

"First of all abortion isn't "killing anything" when it's done early enough in the first trimester."

i disagree.

Quote :

"Second of all 99 percent of people probably are NOT using abortion as a form of birth control"

I've known several people personally that have had multiple abortions....in my book once may be a mistake, but more than that and its birth control.

6/21/2007 11:33:46 AM

^ It's defin not killing anything early enough. It's just stupid to make that claim. I guess i'm the minority here now. You'd have to prove that life exists in each phase zygote, embryo, or fetus, to actually make that claim.

Yes more than one abortion is usually a sign of irresponsibility and they should be helped.

Anyone religious here? I've read Genesis and there's plenty of references to what a human being is. For example in Geneis 2:7 it says man becomes a "living soul" only after God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" and the child was born.

Not to mention that in early hebew Scriptures, it suggests a fetus is regarded as a pre-human. A fetus becomes fully human only after it has half-emerged from the birth canal.

""The Lord said to Moses, 'Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether [hu]man or animal.'" -Exodus 13:1-2

Throughout much of the ancient Middle East, the firstborn son in each family was ritually murdered as a sacrifice to the Gods. How can religious freaks be against abortion when the bible is full of stuff like this? (not saying anyone here is, just in general)

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 11:51 AM. Reason : .]

6/21/2007 11:37:45 AM

prepare to be roasted

6/21/2007 11:57:10 AM

I thought people who used the Bible to support their beliefs were usually pro-life

One time this rapper said "If Mary woulda buried the fetus, you woulda never heard of Jesus"

neodata dont you think the "there are already enough children without homes" is kind of a copout when its possible that a woman aborts the next great doctor or scientist or philanthropist?

again I'm for this research and I'm not too strongly opinionated on abortion in general cause it hasn't affected me too much personally...I dated a chick who had an abortion before we dated but other than that it hasnt affected me personally...I'd say I'm pro-life but I could see myself doing a quick 180 if my teenage daughter got pregnant

6/21/2007 11:57:38 AM

the bible, or any other religious scripture aren't where I derive my views.

6/21/2007 11:59:50 AM

^^That's my point. I'm doing something different, and actually researching the Bible, and in actuality in the old and new testament there's no direct references to abortion. The only references are quotes like i posted above. The bible is very horrid, and violent if people actually read the whole thing, each version. Stuff they teach in sunday school is the dumb-downed nice version.

^^And no i don't think it's a copout. I think the best way is birth control, and in no way should having kids and putting them up for adoption be supported. Yes if it happens, then do it, but it should not be an alternative to abortion. There's thousands of children without parents, living in foster homes having horrible times, and that's just adding to that.

^me neither, i just thought i shoudl bring it up, in case anyone does.

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 12:04 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2007 12:00:00 PM

Quote :

"in no way should having kids and putting them up for adoption be supported. Yes if it happens, then do it, but it should not be an alternative to abortion."

seems like a pretty warped viewpoint to be so anti-adoption when you dont seem to have much of a problem with abortion

dont most people who get abortions or put kids up for adoption do it for similar reasons, namely that they dont want to/cant take care of a baby in that time of their lives? you dont want to give the kid a chance at life just because the kid might not have a great life? at least they'd have a life

your viewpoint almost seems to be on some dr. kevorkian point of view...except of course the kids arent on death beds with terminal illnesses...they're just babies/kids

6/21/2007 12:40:51 PM

Quote :

"is kind of a copout when its possible that a woman aborts the next great doctor or scientist or philanthropist?"

Absolutely not. It is not like the woman can not have any more babies in her life time. Chances are if she is having an abortion it is b.c she is not financially, socially, or matured enough to raise a baby in a nurturing home. The baby born from a 16 yr old out of wed lock is less likely to have the means to become the next doctor or scientist. If the 16 yr old had an abortion, went to college, then got married to a successful good husband this child is just as capable of being that scientist/philanthropist if not more likely. I am pro-choice for many reasons but if nothing else then the fact that like illegal drugs just b.c it is illegal doesn't mean people will not get an abortion. It just raises the stake and disproportionately effects the poor.

6/21/2007 1:08:49 PM

I just think a tough life is better than no life

6/21/2007 1:12:15 PM

what would you know? you've never experienced "no life"

6/21/2007 1:28:43 PM

is it not fair to the baby that COULD have been born.

From a perspective everytime you jack off you are killing a baby that could have been. Or a woman time she has her period. That egg could have been the next president or next Michael Jordan had she spread her legs and got pregnant

6/21/2007 1:30:51 PM

^ ahah, hey honey, you don't want to kill the next Einstein right?

6/21/2007 1:34:48 PM

l

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 1:45 PM. Reason : l]

6/21/2007 1:43:40 PM

^ Indeed every time you jack off, etc you're killing thousands of possible babies.


^^^^^^^Sorry i was a bit harsh, was in a rush to make a lunch meeting. I have nothing against adoption, i just don't think people should use that as a form of birth control either, just like abortion. (Obviously that's a harsh comparison) but what i'm saying is people shouldn't rely on abortion or adoption, they should focus on education and birth control.

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 1:47 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2007 1:47:03 PM

^i agree people shouldnt rely on either, but i dont know how adoption can be any worse than abortion...for the mother theyre essentially getting the same overall thing, which is not having to take care of their unwanted baby...but with adoption at least that baby gets a chance whereas with abortion they obviously dont

6/21/2007 1:53:41 PM

^ agree, which is why i am anti abortion

there are some cases, such as the fetus is a non functional hydrocephallic, where 'abortion' makes sense... as the child WILL HAVE NO functional LIFE what so ever. (and will usually only be 'alive' for a few moments before expiring) that and emergency contraceptives for rape victims covers all the traditional valid excuses for abortion. (btw this is about my only socially 'conservative' view point)

otherwise, have the kid, have an adoption, go on your merry little way....

there are millions of couples that are financially stable and such that want to adopt

6/21/2007 1:58:11 PM

and maybe one day we can convince madonna and angelina jolie to actually adopt american kids

6/21/2007 1:59:12 PM

^^^But with adoption the mother knows she has a child out there growing up, and that creates issues in the future not to mention having to give up your baby once it's born.

With abortion (the term sounds so technical and harsh) it doesn't create any problems at all. I think if an abortion is done early enough, within the first few weeks of the trimester there's no chance of actually "killing" an unborn baby. That's a whole scientific argument though, when the baby actually is a living, thinking being. Many argue that this doesn't even happen until later on in the pregnancy. Even "pro-lifers" recognize the fact that the baby isn't really a baby until later on in the pregnancy. It's the idea of "killing" something that COULD turn into a baby that causes people to be against abortion. If that's the case, then they should just be against sex in general because it opens the possibility for a child.

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 2:07 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2007 2:00:07 PM