Once again...all designed to appeal to the emotional side.

I find this man inconsistent at best on so many issues.

Even Rick Santorem tried a compromise..........

The bill permits federal funding for research if the stem cells are:
— derived from embryos donated by in vitro fertilization clinics;
— in excess of the need of the individuals seeking fertility treatment;
— otherwise going to be discarded;
— donated by individuals with their written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.

I don’t see how using an embryo that is “otherwise going to be discarded” can be considered supporting “the taking of innocent human life.”

There have been some objections to the funding of this, rather than the moral issue that Bush raises. This is a valid opinion. However, it is not why Bush vetoed it.

What I am saying is the capitalism in and of itself is not altruistic and medical research is one of the few areas that I feel the government should support for that very reason.

Were do the embryo's come from, can I presume women are paid to donate them?

As I understand it, most of the embryos are "left overs" from in vitro fertilization.

I wonder how many "Christians" commited genocide in front of Palmala Handersons image. Shame, shame.

I am glad our President is not concerned with being a "tactician," but rather with doing what is right. Liberals could learn a lot from him. Doing the right thing...at least occasionally...instead of always looking for political advantage ...might help them win an election again someday. A moral compass...always points the right way.

The definition of "what is right" is an individual matter, as shown by the various POVs posted on this BB.

fint: You ain't always right you know....

Everything in Washington is done for political advantage, my friend. All one has to do is watch the press interviews like the one after the veto today. Something about "these children are not spare parts"? What does this have to do with embryos that are supposedly scheduled for destruction at some point in the future?

Of course I am.

He said that he would veto the bill...
and then he did exactly as he said he would. Liberals should be so consistent.

No, they are not paid to donate them. There are laws against that. Just like you can’t be paid to donate a kidney.


With this veto, Bush said he would rather throw these unused embryos away than use them to help people. I fail to see how this is the morally correct thing.

Y'know, like Halliburton non compete contracts, Homeland Security earmarking, Sen Steven's "Bridge to Nowhere", and the neo-con vision to create democracy by invasion.

Hmmmm..... This bill passed out of a Republican-controlled Senate with nearly enough votes to override a presidential veto. I would agree their minds are small, but factually the "liberal" accusation is false in this instance.

This is true. Dubya is a pariah. Support of him is rapidly becoming the kiss of death. Liberals and conservatives alike are distancing themselves. And in the midst of all this, Dubya think's it's a good idea to use his first veto to kill a bill with nearly a veto-overriding supermajority already, in an environment where everyone wants to distance themselves from him. I'm going to be there with my bag of popcorn.

Again, Superman entirely misses someones point. Re-read Jeff's post and don't take it out of context.

Okay, I read it again. Since my comments appear above, I will not restate them.

How is throwing them away, rather than using them to help people, the right thing?