PDA

View Full Version : Stem Cell Veto


irishjayhawk
06-20-2007, 06:40 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/20/bush.stem.cell.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vetoing a stem cell bill for the second time, President Bush on Wednesday sought to placate those who disagree with him by signing an executive order urging scientists toward what he termed "ethically responsible" research in the field.

Bush announced no new federal dollars for stem cell research, which supporters say holds the promise of disease cures, and his order would not allow researchers to do anything they couldn't do under existing restrictions.

Announcing his veto to a roomful of supporters, Bush said, "If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. I made it clear to Congress and to the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line."

He vetoed similar embryonic stem cell legislation last July. (Interactive: Past vetoes by Bush and other presidents)

His executive order encourages scientists to work with the government to add other kinds of stem cell research to the list of projects eligible for federal funding -- so long as it does not create, harm or destroy human embryos.

Democrats, focusing on the potential for cures or treatments of Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other diseases, made the embryonic stem cell legislation a priority when they took control of the House and Senate in January.

"President Bush won't listen to the more than 500 leading organizations who support the bill including AARP, the American Medical Association and the American Diabetes Association, just to name a few," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said.

"President Bush won't listen to the 80 Nobel laureates or his own director of the National Institutes of Health, who all support embryonic stem cell research. Most importantly, President Bush won't listen to the overwhelming majority of Americans who call out for stem cell research."
Reid to schedule override vote

Reid said he would schedule an override vote "very, very quickly," but not until Wyoming selects a temporary replacement for Republican Sen. Craig Thomas, who died two weeks ago. Democrats do not have enough votes to override Bush's veto.

The stem cell issue has weighty political and ethical implications. Public opinion polls show strong support for the research, and it could return as an issue in the 2008 elections.

Republican presidential hopefuls are split on the scope of federal involvement in embryonic stem cell research. Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani have broken with Bush -- and the GOP's social conservatives -- in backing the expansion of federal funding for such research. At the Republican debate May 3, Giuliani said he supports such an expansion with limits, "as long as we're not creating life in order to destroy it, as long as we're not having human cloning."

Rivals Mitt Romney and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas oppose the expansion. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney tried to stop legislation that encouraged expanded embryonic stem cell research. His veto was overturned.

Most of the Democratic candidates have urged Bush to expand the research.

The president is "deferring the hopes of millions of Americans who do not have the time to keep waiting for the cure that may save or extend lives," Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, said if she is elected president, she will lift restrictions on stem cell research.

"This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families," she said.

And former Sen. John Edwards, also vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, said the president "had a simple choice today: direct the full force of American scientific ingenuity towards responsible, life-saving medical research or pander to a narrow segment of his political base."

"With his veto, he made the wrong choice," he said in a statement.

Scientists were first able to conduct research with embryonic stem cells in 1998, according to the National Institutes of Health. There were no federal funds available for the work until Bush announced on August 9, 2001, that his administration would spend tax money for research on lines of cells that already were in existence.

The White House says that since 2001, the administration has made $130 million available for research on stem cell lines derived from embryos that already had been destroyed before Bush's policy was announced. It also has provided more than $3 billion in federal dollars for research on non-embryonic sources.

States and private organizations are permitted to fund embryonic stem cell research, but federal support is limited to cells that existed as of August 9, 2001. The latest bill was aimed at lifting that restriction.

Bush said his executive order directs the Health and Human Services Department to promote research into cells that -- like human embryonic stem cells -- also hold the potential of regenerating into different types of cells that might be used to battle disease, and make them eligible for federal funding.

The order also renames the NIH's Embryonic Stem Cell Registry the Pluripotent Stem Cell Registry so that it reflects what the stem cells can do, instead of their origin. Pluripotent stem cells are ones that can give rise to any kind of cell in the body except those required to develop a fetus.
Bush: This is not the only option before us

"Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical, and it is not the only option before us," said Bush, who appeared on stage with Kaitlyne McNamara of Middletown, Connecticut, who was born with spina bifida, and is benefiting from what he called "ethical stem cell research."

Sean Tipton, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, expressed anger and disgust at the veto and Bush's order.

"His executive order directing NIH to continue pursing alternate forms of research is nothing new since NIH has already been conducting this research for the past 20 years," Tipton said.

Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, the bill's chief Democratic supporter who has a daughter with juvenile diabetes, said the executive order is not a substitute for easing funding restrictions.

"While I support these other methods of research, the consensus among the scientific community is that these methods are years behind the progress of embryonic stem cell research," she said, adding that British scientists recently announced that embryonic stem cells may be used to cure a form of macular degeneration within five years. "This research was made possible by an anonymous donation from a U.S. donor, who has become frustrated by curbs on stem cell work in this country."

mlyonsd
06-20-2007, 06:45 PM
Good for Bush. The government has no business using people's tax money when the country is divided on the issue.

HolmeZz
06-20-2007, 06:46 PM
GOD CREATED DISEASES FOR A REASON. BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT US TO CURE THEM.

irishjayhawk
06-20-2007, 06:47 PM
Good for Bush. The government has no business using people's tax money when the country is divided on the issue.

Yet he requests $$$ for years on a War which the country was divided....

HolmeZz
06-20-2007, 06:48 PM
Yet he requests $$$ for years on a War which the country was divided....

ohsnap

How dare you use his own retarded logic against him.

mlyonsd
06-20-2007, 06:53 PM
Yet he requests $$$ for years on a War which the country was divided....

No argument there.

Maybe if you could get an embryo to volunteer to be disected under a microscope you'd get me to logically tie the two issues together.

HolmeZz
06-20-2007, 06:54 PM
Maybe if you could get an embryo to volunteer to be disected under a microscope you'd get me to logically tie the two issues together.

Brownback can speak for the embryos!

http://cache.wonkette.com/politics/upload/2006/07/brownbacksign.jpg

mlyonsd
06-20-2007, 06:56 PM
ohsnap

How dare you use his own retarded logic against him.

Is embryonic stem cell research illegal or is Bush just not allowing public funds to be used?

irishjayhawk
06-20-2007, 06:57 PM
No argument there.

Maybe if you could get an embryo to volunteer to be disected under a microscope you'd get me to logically tie the two issues together.

You tied the two together by saying it isn't the governments business to spend money on an issue that has the country divided. :rolleyes:

mlyonsd
06-20-2007, 06:58 PM
Only Brownback can communicate with embryos.

http://cache.wonkette.com/politics/upload/2006/07/brownbacksign.jpg

The problem with people like you is you mock those that would defend your right to live when you couldn't speak for yourself.

You might think it's funny but in reality you don't have any other thing to offer to the discussion.

irishjayhawk
06-20-2007, 06:58 PM
Is embryonic stem cell research illegal or is Bush just not allowing public funds to be used?

Is the war illegal or is Bush just allowing boatloads of public funds to be used?

HolmeZz
06-20-2007, 06:59 PM
Is embryonic stem cell research illegal or is Bush just not allowing public funds to be used?

You said he shouldn't allow funding for something that the country's divided on. The country's divided on the War. You ignore this part of the argument and go off on a tangent about how embryos can't volunteer to be used for science(trying to connect stem call research and the war in a completely unrelated way to the point you were actually making).

irishjayhawk
06-20-2007, 06:59 PM
The problem with people like you is you mock those that would defend your right to live when you couldn't speak for yourself.

You might think it's funny but in reality you don't have any other thing to offer to the discussion.

And the problem with people like you is you personify a cluster of cells. You use empathy when empathy can't be used because the other doesn't have eyes to look through or shoes to walk in.

It's interesting, everywhere else in nature birth is a natural line. Not for humans. No, birth is no line.

mlyonsd
06-20-2007, 07:08 PM
Is the war illegal or is Bush just allowing boatloads of public funds to be used?

Quit trying to tie national security to the rights of the unborn. The two aren't even close to the same argument.

irishjayhawk
06-20-2007, 07:09 PM
Quit trying to tie national security to the rights of the unborn. The two aren't even close to the same argument.

Now two things have tied the two together:

Your retarded logic.
Your insinuation about governments not wasting money on issues that have the country divided.

mlyonsd
06-20-2007, 07:09 PM
You said he shouldn't allow funding for something that the country's divided on. The country's divided on the War. You ignore this part of the argument and go off on a tangent about how embryos can't volunteer to be used for science(trying to connect stem call research and the war in a completely unrelated way to the point you were actually making).

No, irish went off on the tangent when trying to how a president handles national security with unborn embryos.

mlyonsd
06-20-2007, 07:10 PM
And the problem with people like you is you personify a cluster of cells. You use empathy when empathy can't be used because the other doesn't have eyes to look through or shoes to walk in.

It's interesting, everywhere else in nature birth is a natural line. Not for humans. No, birth is no line.

Thanks for your opinion but I disagree.

irishjayhawk
06-20-2007, 07:12 PM
No, irish went off on the tangent when trying to how a president handles national security with unborn embryos.

No, I simply used the qualifier for your statement following "Good for Bush" against you.

To deflect/repell/wish-it-never-happened you have tried to say the two issues aren't close to each other when you are the one who tied them together. Moreover, the basic tenet known as "funding" seems to run through both issues. Therefore they are quite the same.

Morals tie the two together: morals about killing unborn, morals about war, morals about killing, morals about sending troops to die, morals about funding war.

Don't act like the two aren't connected. Seriously. Find a white flag smiley and use it.

mlyonsd
06-20-2007, 07:14 PM
Now two things have tied the two together:

Your retarded logic.
Your insinuation about governments not wasting money on issues that have the country divided.

Quit being obtuse. You mock my retarded logic when it serves you and not when it might defend you.

The fact you can't understand the compassion one might feel towards a possible life in a petrie dish is sad.

mlyonsd
06-20-2007, 07:16 PM
No, I simply used the qualifier for your statement following "Good for Bush" against you.

To deflect/repell/wish-it-never-happened you have tried to say the two issues aren't close to each other when you are the one who tied them together. Moreover, the basic tenet known as "funding" seems to run through both issues. Therefore they are quite the same.

Morals tie the two together: morals about killing unborn, morals about war, morals about killing, morals about sending troops to die, morals about funding war.

Don't act like the two aren't connected. Seriously. Find a white flag smiley and use it.

They are not connected in the least. I'm sorry you can't step back and see that.

irishjayhawk
06-20-2007, 07:18 PM
Quit being obtuse. You mock my retarded logic when it serves you and not when it might defend you.

The fact you can't understand the compassion one might feel towards a possible life in a petrie dish is sad.

What are you even talking about?

You are now starting to try and tear me down for my moral position.

This has nothing to do with the fact that you tied the two together and have been trying to beat around the bush ever since by trying to make it seem like you didn't or we're implying something WAY off base.

And obtuse is Kotter's word. :p

irishjayhawk
06-20-2007, 07:19 PM
They are not connected in the least. I'm sorry you can't step back and see that.

You are right. They weren't connected in the least until you tied them together. I'm sorry you can't step back and see that.

mlyonsd
06-20-2007, 07:21 PM
What are you even talking about?

You are now starting to try and tear me down for my moral position.

This has nothing to do with the fact that you tied the two together and have been trying to beat around the bush ever since by trying to make it seem like you didn't or we're implying something WAY off base.

And obtuse is Kotter's word. :p
Let's be perfectly clear. You tied the two together, not me.

And I think obtuse is a Logical term. Or it goes way back so far it's creation is a planet mystery.

irishjayhawk
06-20-2007, 07:23 PM
Let's be perfectly clear. You tied the two together, not me.

And I think obtuse is a Logical term. Or it goes way back so far it's creation is a planet mystery.

Let's be perfectly clear. I pointed out your (unintentional) implication that tied the two together.

HolmeZz
06-20-2007, 07:24 PM
Quit trying to tie national security to the rights of the unborn. The two aren't even close to the same argument.

But you said Bush shouldn't fund anything that the country is divided on.

The ethics of the two are irrelevant to the actual statement you made.

mlyonsd
06-20-2007, 07:29 PM
Let's be perfectly clear. I pointed out your (unintentional) implication that tied the two together.

I purposely stated the country was divided on the moral issue of stem cell research.

Which is not tied one bit to the fact the country is divided on a national security issue in that we are fighting a war in Iraq.

The difference is huge in my mind. Bush has to make a decision on both. In the case of stem cell research I back him on it.

Does that clear it up?

mlyonsd
06-20-2007, 07:30 PM
But you said Bush shouldn't fund anything that the country is divided on.

The ethics of the two are irrelevant to the actual statement you made.
You wear me out. That's about the nicest thing I can think of to say right now.

HolmeZz
06-20-2007, 07:31 PM
You wear me out. That's about the nicest thing I can think of to say right now.

I accept your concession.

irishjayhawk
06-20-2007, 07:31 PM
I purposely stated the country was divided on the moral issue of stem cell research.

Which is not tied one bit to the fact the country is divided on a national security issue in that we are fighting a war in Iraq.

The difference is huge in my mind. Bush has to make a decision on both. In the case of stem cell research I back him on it.

Does that clear it up?

Umm, isn't the fact that both issues have the country divided a tie?

And let's not pretend that the war issue isn't a moral issue as well. Otherwise you'd be a hypocrite for protecting those who are a cluster of cells but are willing to send a post-birth, of age, human to die in war. Either leave the morals out or include both sides.

Hydrae
06-20-2007, 07:38 PM
Geez, enough you three.

As to that, I agree with stem cell research (or maybe I should say I don't oppose it). But I also agree with mlyonsd that federal money should not be spent on it. They have enough stupid things they spend my money on, they don't need any more reasons to leave their grubby mitts in my pocket! (You would think just once I might get a small grope out of it but the bastards won't even give me that much pleasure! :cuss: )

Money being spent in Iraq is a different kettle of fish.

mlyonsd
06-20-2007, 07:40 PM
Umm, isn't the fact that both issues have the country divided a tie?

And let's not pretend that the war issue isn't a moral issue as well. Otherwise you'd be a hypocrite for protecting those who are a cluster of cells but are willing to send a post-birth, of age, human to die in war. Either leave the morals out or include both sides.

Good God, you're as bad as Holmez.

Do you see a difference at all between the two issues?

HolmeZz
06-20-2007, 07:42 PM
Do you see a difference at all between the two issues?

Not for the reason that 'the country is divided against it so therefore it shouldn't be funded'. You can't use that to justify one thing and not for something else. That's just hypocritical.

mlyonsd
06-20-2007, 07:42 PM
Geez, enough you three.

As to that, I agree with stem cell research (or maybe I should say I don't oppose it). But I also agree with mlyonsd that federal money should not be spent on it. They have enough stupid things they spend my money on, they don't need any more reasons to leave their grubby mitts in my pocket! (You would think just once I might get a small grope out of it but the bastards won't even give me that much pleasure! :cuss: )

Money being spent in Iraq is a different kettle of fish.

What have you got against fish? I like to fish.

irishjayhawk
06-20-2007, 07:43 PM
Good God, you're as bad as Holmez.

Do you see a difference at all between the two issues?

I told you. They are different issues but that's NOT AT ALL what you said. You said the government has no business funding issues that have the country divided. Both issues fall under that.

Ebolapox
06-20-2007, 07:44 PM
Brownback can speak for the embryos!

http://cache.wonkette.com/politics/upload/2006/07/brownbacksign.jpg

that felt a LOT like an ultra peanut post. congrats, that's one of the harder posts to match styles with

Hydrae
06-20-2007, 07:45 PM
What have you got against fish? I like to fish.


But would you shoot them if they were in a barrel?

mlyonsd
06-20-2007, 07:45 PM
Not for the reason that 'the country is divided against it so therefore it shouldn't be funded'. You can't use that to justify one thing and not for something else. That's just hypocritical.

Sorry, for me each issue is extremly independent of the other and not tied together what so ever.

irishjayhawk
06-20-2007, 07:45 PM
Geez, enough you three.

As to that, I agree with stem cell research (or maybe I should say I don't oppose it). But I also agree with mlyonsd that federal money should not be spent on it. They have enough stupid things they spend my money on, they don't need any more reasons to leave their grubby mitts in my pocket! (You would think just once I might get a small grope out of it but the bastards won't even give me that much pleasure! :cuss: )

Money being spent in Iraq is a different kettle of fish.

Money being spent in Iraq kills lives.
Money being spent on stem cell research can help save lives.
How's that for morals mlyonsd?

Now, Hydrae, with the amount of pork that goes through there, at least something should go towards this initiative. Or, perhaps it's acceptable to remain almost dead last in science development and research.

Hydrae
06-20-2007, 07:47 PM
Money being spent in Iraq kills lives.
Money being spent on stem cell research can help save lives.
How's that for morals mlyonsd?

Now, Hydrae, with the amount of pork that goes through there, at least something should go towards this initiative. Or, perhaps it's acceptable to remain almost dead last in science development and research.


Oh, I am just for killing that damn porkie pig. And yes, I think most scientific type of studies should be done on a private level. You know, capitalism and all that.

HolmeZz
06-20-2007, 07:49 PM
Sorry, for me each issue is extremly independent of the other and not tied together what so ever.

Really? People who oppose the War in Iraq could make the same argument you're making for opposing stem cell funding. That all these lives are being unjustifiably lost.

irishjayhawk
06-20-2007, 07:50 PM
Oh, I am just for killing that damn porkie pig. And yes, I think most scientific type of studies should be done on a private level. You know, capitalism and all that.

I respectfully disagree. A government should pursue any avenues into helping the medical industry.

mlyonsd
06-20-2007, 07:59 PM
I respectfully disagree. A government should pursue any avenues into helping the medical industry.

Not when the morality of the research needed is paid for by those that don't agree.

Thanks for bringing me back to my first post.

HolmeZz
06-20-2007, 07:59 PM
Not when the morality of the research needed is paid for by those that don't agree.

JUST

LIKE

THE WAR

irishjayhawk
06-20-2007, 08:03 PM
JUST

LIKE

THE WAR

No, DUMMY!

They're completely unrelated in both ethics and funding. Each thing is completely independent which allows me to morph my morality to defend or attack things when really it's the same morality.

mlyonsd
06-20-2007, 08:06 PM
JUST

LIKE

THE WAR
Don't forget immigration. Because stem cell research is just like immigration.

Or Global warming. It's tied together too.

I go back to my statement, "Good for Bush".

HolmeZz
06-20-2007, 08:09 PM
Well we can't spend money on immigration because the country is divided on it.

It's a good thing we're discussing this though, or we might not know if it's true.

irishjayhawk
06-20-2007, 08:11 PM
Don't forget immigration. Because stem cell research is just like immigration.

Or Global warming. It's tied together too.

I go back to my statement, "Good for Bush".


And then you qualified the statement saying the reason behind the "good" part was because governments shouldn't spend money on things that have divided or divide the country.

What do you not get about that?

mlyonsd
06-20-2007, 08:23 PM
And then you qualified the statement saying the reason behind the "good" part was because governments shouldn't spend money on things that have divided or divide the country.

What do you not get about that?

And why can't you see I was making a political statement by saying "Good for Bush"?

A presidendt making a decision on an issue that the country is divided on when it doesn't matter to national security is totally different than one that is.

irishjayhawk
06-20-2007, 08:28 PM
And why can't you see I was making a political statement by saying "Good for Bush"?

A presidendt making a decision on an issue that the country is divided on when it doesn't matter to national security is totally different than one that is.


I know you were making a political statement with "Good for Bush". But then you stated your reasoning. And it's hypocritical to suggest you can spend on one and not on the other if the issue was "not spend money on an issue that divided the country".

We shouldn't spend any on Global Warming research (in either direction), none on immigration, none on - well anything that divides the nation. Oh wait, unless it's national security in which you would argue that that's somehow different in terms of SPENDING money.

Logical
06-20-2007, 08:52 PM
Quit being obtuse. You mock my retarded logic when it serves you and not when it might defend you.

The fact you can't understand the compassion one might feel towards a possible life in a petrie dish is sad.

You cannot possibly be serious. Tell me this post was TIC?

WoodDraw
06-20-2007, 09:14 PM
I was looking for a nice this thread sucks image, but gave up. Nothing like four pages of posts with little logic or advancement in arguments. Well done.

The President is fully within his right to veto. Whatever logic you want to use to justify it is fine, although "americans are devided" wouldn't be my first choice.

Pitt Gorilla
06-20-2007, 09:19 PM
And why can't you see I was making a political statement by saying "Good for Bush"?

A presidendt making a decision on an issue that the country is divided on when it doesn't matter to national security is totally different than one that is.I like that you've added the caveat.
:)

Sully
06-20-2007, 09:35 PM
The government should never fund something that the country is greatly divided on...


...unless I agree with funding it.

irishjayhawk
06-20-2007, 09:42 PM
I was looking for a nice this thread sucks image, but gave up. Nothing like four pages of posts with little logic or advancement in arguments. Well done.

The President is fully within his right to veto. Whatever logic you want to use to justify it is fine, although "americans are devided" wouldn't be my first choice.

I know the President is fully within his right to veto. That was never the question. It was about mlyonsd's statement.

irishjayhawk
06-20-2007, 09:42 PM
The government should never fund something that the country is greatly divided on...


...unless I agree with funding it.

Thank you for concisely putting what I could not.

WoodDraw
06-20-2007, 09:51 PM
I know the President is fully within his right to veto. That was never the question. It was about mlyonsd's statement.

Why does it matter? There are differences between the war and stem cells. One, the war was authorized by congress. Two, congress continues to fund the Iraqi war. I could go on and on. Not to defend the original statement, but yours isn't too much higher on the intellectual scale.

irishjayhawk
06-20-2007, 09:54 PM
Why does it matter? There are differences between the war and stem cells. One, the war was authorized by congress. Two, congress continues to fund the Iraqi war. I could go on and on. Not to defend the original statement, but yours isn't too much higher on the intellectual scale.

But that's the point, I never tied the two together. I merely pointed out his - now it seems unintentional - tying of the two issues together. You can't say the government (which includes Congress...) shouldn't fund any issue that the country is divided on and then say they can. It's hypocritical. That was the whole point, except he couldn't see that.

go bowe
06-20-2007, 09:58 PM
The problem with people like you is you mock those that would defend your right to live when you couldn't speak for yourself.

You might think it's funny but in reality you don't have any other thing to offer to the discussion.hey, mocking people is just good clean fun...

and what's this you say about having something to offer to the discussion?

if a poster has to have something to offer in these threads, i'm cooked...

my whole cyber world will implode...

it would be a ghastly sight, to be sure...

i can't bear the thought...

oh well, i'll recover somehow...

(and for bonus points, what will i do to recover?)

WoodDraw
06-20-2007, 10:02 PM
But that's the point, I never tied the two together. I merely pointed out his - now it seems unintentional - tying of the two issues together. You can't say the government (which includes Congress...) shouldn't fund any issue that the country is divided on and then say they can. It's hypocritical. That was the whole point, except he couldn't see that.

Sure, but the war was extremely popular when it was first authorized and war and stem cells are undeniably different. My point was just that his point was exagerated, with four pages of nothing being discussed. That was all.

go bowe
06-20-2007, 10:03 PM
Thanks for your opinion but I disagree.eh what?

what was his opinion?

i couldn't quite make out what he was trying to say...

but i'm pretty sure i'd disagree too...

jAZ
06-20-2007, 10:30 PM
Good for Bush. The government has no business using people's tax money when the country is divided on the issue.
Just FYI...

It's only Republicans and Conservatives that are divided on the issue (about 50/50). The rest of the country is widely supportive of both Stem Cell Research and federal funding of it.

Bush is completely out of touch on this issue. And it seems you might be as well given your well off-base assessment of "the country('s)" view on the issue.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=3297755

Bush's Veto of a Stem Cell Bill Comes as More People Say They Support Research
ANALYSIS By GARY LANGER, Director of Polling, ABC News
June 20, 2007


President Bush's pending veto of stem cell research legislation comes at a time when public support for such research is at an all-time high.

Most Americans long have backed stem cell research  58 percent or more in ABC News/Washington Post polls since 2001. That's peaked, at 68 percent support, in the latest ABC/Post poll to measure views on the issue, in April.

Sixty percent, moreover, favor loosening the current restrictions on federal funding for this research, as the legislation Bush has rejected would have done. And that again has been consistent: An identical 60 percent supported federal funding for stem cell research in an ABC/Post poll conducted when the issue first arose six years ago.

There are sharp partisan differences. While 80 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of independents support stem cell research overall, that falls to 49 percent of Republicans. Similarly, more than three-quarters of liberals and moderates alike support stem cell research, compared with 47 percent of conservatives.

When it comes to federal funding, Republicans and conservatives are even less supportive  majorities, 55 percent and 56 percent respectively  oppose it. In that sense, Bush, in vetoing the legislation, reflects the majority view among his base supporters.

Perhaps surprisingly, religious belief creates somewhat less of a split: Even among evangelical white Protestants, 57 percent support stem cell research, as do three-quarters of nonevangelical Protestants and Catholics alike. And 51 percent of evangelical white Protestants support federal funding for this research, with 45 percent opposed.

With the war in Iraq still driving public discontent, Bush's veto of another stem cell research bill is hardly likely to get him into much deeper disapproval; after all, the public knew his position on the issue when he won reelection in 2004. But for a long-beleaguered president, holding tightly to a position on stem cell research that runs counter to steady public preferences can hardly help.

HolmeZz
06-21-2007, 12:57 AM
You cannot possibly be serious. Tell me this post was TIC?

Do you not have love for your fellow petri dish?

stevieray
06-21-2007, 08:08 AM
Good God, you're as bad as Holmez.

Do you see a difference at all between the two issues?

you're kidding, right?