In July of last year, President Bush vetoed a stem cell research bill that would have eased restrictions against funding programs that used stem cells from embryos created for in vitro fertilization but were not used. The President said that the bill "would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," and that "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect." This was the first time that Bush used a veto during his term as president. Although Congress had more than enough votes to pass the bill, neither house had the necessary 2/3 majority to override the veto.
This has always been a tough issue for me. I won't get into where I stand on stem cell research, but it does make me think about when a veto should be used. In this case, who really should be relied on to measure the moral compass of the nation? The Presidents is elected by the entire nation, whose religious, ethic, moral, and political beliefs spread across the entire spectrum. The members of Congress are elected by a smaller sample, taken only from their states. Shouldn't they know where their constituents stand on an issue? I may not have an answer to this question.
5 comments:
Well Mr.Austin I think stem cell research can help many people... and i dont think it is wrong to clone or to create another human being through science and not through natural ways of reproduction.so i do not believe bush should veto stem cell research for the many lives it can save. So whats your oppinion on this subject Patrick? and howabout jellyfishing today at noon?
I feel that stem cell research should be allowed. I think that congress should override the veto on this bill not only because of the various medical benifits that it will undoubtably spawn but because most of the nation (63% percent according to http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll010803.html) feels that it should be allowed as well. Congress should serve the interests of the majority by supporting stem cell research even if the president does not. What say you fellow residents of Bikini Bottom?
Stem Cell research is always a controversial issue and i too don't have any anwsers, but only opinions. I personally feel that stem cell research should be allowed only for ceratin purposes. Researching about stem cells can help us understand the topic more better and can help inform the future generations of the future. I understand Bush's reason for vetoing this bill because I agree with the statement that it "would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," and that "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect." Bush finally does something good for a change.
Also, if your hungry, come visit the Krusty Krabs!
As President Bush has stated, Stem Cell research should not be permitted and will only premote the taking of innocent lives. This research requires the killing of undeveloped human embryos, given no chance to live a life. Although Stem Cell research may benefit future generations, it is still slaughtering a human being. Must we take the lives of others just to satisfy ourselves in the future? I think not.
I think that the stem cell issue, controversial and complicated, is significantly influenced by one's religious views. For example, numerous Christians are vehemently against taking one's life for purposes that do not relate to extreme criminal charges (eg. murder). I think that if the person has a weak chance of surviving and actually allows his/her body to be used in the research field, then stem cell research may be a possibility. However, this gray issue includes many more factors other than personal views and I don't have a clear opinion about it either.
Post a Comment