On a serious note

[turbomangt]

Looks like Buch plans on vetoing the stem cell research plan that the house approved. This is bad news for my son with Diabetes along with other people that have a cronic disease. I wish just once Bush would open his eyes and see the big picture. The Juvenille Diabetes Foundation wrote thousands of letters asking for support, but now it looks like it was in vain, Sorry for complaining, It just kills me to see my son inject himself 5 times a day when their is the possibility to cure this thing. Gary

[quicksilverdon]

What troubles me most is Bush feeling his religious opinions should translate to law.
He claims to believe "all life is sacred" but as gov of Texas presided over more executions than all other states combined by a wide margin.
The people I have admired most in my life did not proclaim their religion to me, but they lived their life by caring for those less fortunate, being kind and forgiving, tolerant of other's opinions - those that "advertise" their religion too often are hypocrites - the Jerry Falwells - and to me are as evil as Muslim leaders that get suicide bombers to kill innocent people - all in the name of God. Why do some people feel the need to have others lead them on morals? Don't you feel right and wrong in your heart?
Sorry, I digress.....
[xx(]

[2step]

"Kill the babies, Save the murderers" is an attitude that makes me uncomfortable. The issue is not so black and white to me but various shades of gray. (I have a step-son with diabetes and also wish for a cure ASAP.) I not sure that your claims that Bush and/or religious people don't have the right answers but you do, should not be questioned the same way you question them. I'm not saying who is right or wrong because I just don't know. I am looking for answers, though.

I just watched an interview on CNN of a stem cell researcher who stated that research is moving along quickly in other countries. His only regret was that the USA was not smack in the middle of it. No single ideology (Bush) is holding anything up.

In the USA, we have a government system of checks and balances. If there is one branch that is out of control at this time, it's not the executive branch. It's the judicial branch. Judges have gone far past interpreting the law to actually making the law. What's more dangerous, tight controls or no controls?

The attitude that "I know what's best" is not exclusive to religion by any means.

[robinjoe]

You have to understand that there are many people in America and throughout the world who believe that human embryos are humans entitled to the full protection of the law.

To these people, killing human embryos to extract stem cells is murder. It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with right and wrong.

Some people have the world-view that these embryos are not humans, and therefore are not worthy of protection. But that means they are imposing their world-view (aka religion) on the embryos as they kill them.

If you want to take world-view, social pressure, and religion out of the equation and rely entirely on science, then the scientific evidence supports the beliefe that the human embryos are indeed human.

1) They have their own DNA, unique from the mother. In a court of law, if the the embryo's DNA was found at the crime scene, the mother wouldn't be convicted because the embryo isn't her.

2) As soon as the fetus forms blood cells, the blood type may be different from the mothers. Once again, in a court of law they would be considered unique persons.

3) Embryos survive without the mother, and are therefore "self sufficient". They need life support, but then again so do new-born babies, but no one can argue that new-born babies aren't human.

4) Premature babies are being delivered successfully at a younger and younger age. At some point we will be able to have "test-tube" babies independant of the mother. At what point of gestation will it be considered human?

There is no need to attack any religious group when discussing this. This is a matter of morals, not religion, and it is the responsibility of government to regulate morals. Otherwise, murder would be legal.

Finaly, keep in mind that Bush is not banning human embryonic stem-cell research, he is just preventing taxe dollars from being taken from the people who believe that the embryos are human. Private funding is still available for this research.

Gary, I'm sorry about your son. My wife has diabetes, and her mother died from complications due to diabetes. However, if I had a disease that might be cured by killing the kid down the street, or in another country, that would be unthinkable. If you start from that perspective, you can start to understand the other side of the argument.

With best regards to you and your family,
Joe

[quicksilverdon]

quote:Originally posted by 2step

"Kill the babies, Save the murderers" is an attitude that makes me uncomfortable.

I am all for capital punishment - provided we are sure we have the right person - too many times DNA has exonerated those convicted. I was just pointing out hypocrisy. If you allege "all life is sacred" why must you execute versus life in prison?

It's a tossup at times which branch of government is most out of control.

I agree there are shades of gray - I don't have all the answers, and I'm leery of those that claim to have all the answers and see things as black and white...

[bobs turbo pt]

What troubles me most is Bush feeling his religious opinions should translate to law.
He claims to believe "all life is sacred" but as gov of Texas presided over more executions than all other states combined by a wide margin

this is so true about bush!!

[robinjoe]

quote:Originally posted by bobs turbo pt

What troubles me most is Bush feeling his religious opinions should translate to law.
He claims to believe "all life is sacred" but as gov of Texas presided over more executions than all other states combined by a wide margin

this is so true about bush!!

A few factual errors in these statements.

1) A governor doesn't preside over executions. He has nothing to do with executions. That's the role of the judiciary. Some governors abuse their power, and break the separation of power between the branches (legislative, executive, and judiciary) by issuing a pardon.
2) The law in Texas allows for death penalty. When a governor pardons a death-row inmate, that's when a governnor is translating his "religious feelings to law". A pardon is nothing more than a governor throwing out the rule of the land, the decisions of countless judges, jurors, apeals courts, etc. and over-ruling the legislators, and voting citizens because he/she wants to impose his/her religious feelings over the law.
3) What you term as "religious feelings", should be termed "moral standards," or "world view". To assume that he is opposed to stem cell research and in favor of capitol punishment because he is a Christian is ludicrous to the extreme. There are plenty of Christians on both side of the argument on both those matters. Especiallly capitol punishment.

[Retro]

I live in Texas. Bush did not "preside" over any executions- he simply upheld the law of the state of Texas as he was OBLIGATED by law to do. In Texas, the governor cannot stop executions, or order them himself, he is very limited by law what he can do. I have mixed feelings about capital punishment, but as I get older and observe the absolutely horrible crimes some people commit, I ask myself- if the guy did it to my child, would I want him executed for the crime? As for innocent people being executed, that is VERY unlikely! They go through years of appeals and more often than not, DNA has confirmed they were guilty rather than exonerated them. I think the stem cell thing has been oversimplified by the "prochoice" lobby and while I hope with all my heart for cures for diseases, I don't think the science is there yet to justify federal funding. In fact, private research should be able to fund most things anyway, even more efffectively. The antiChristian and antiprolife prejudice in the media is appalling and makes me angry. And I am NOT very religious myself, by any means. But when we show tolerance for everything and everybody but Christians and a President of the United States can't even take a moral position on anything without being accused of the stuff I am seeing on here, something is WRONG with this picture. I voted for Bush twice as governer, as did 70% of the rest of my fellow Texans the second time he won, and voted for him twice for President too and proud of it. Even the terms used by our "media" are not really accurate- think about it; what is the opposite of "prolife"? It ain't "prochoice", now, is it. More accurately, it would be ..."prodeath." But hey, that would be politically inccorect, wouldn't it? Think about it.

[quicksilverdon]

"1) A governor doesn't preside over executions. He has nothing to do with executions. That's the role of the judiciary. Some governors abuse their power, and break the separation of power between the branches (legislative, executive, and judiciary) by issuing a pardon."

But a pardon is within his rights. Seems the same as a presidential veto. [:I]

quote:Originally posted by Retro

...... In Texas, the governor cannot stop executions, or order them himself, he is very limited by law what he can do......

I read that the governor "reviews" all scheduled executions, and that Bush gave 15 minutes to "review" each one. Was that a lie? Why would there be a "review" if he can't stop an execution?

Anyway, this will be my last comment on this thread - this board has been (thankfully) Apolitical, and we won't sway each other's opinions anyway - there ARE 2 sides to issues and many of these issues are ones that have only undesirable solutions - we disagree on which answer is the least undesirable.
Peace. [?]

[Retro]

I have no idea how many "minutes" the governor of Texas gave to reviewing each execution, but I do not believe everything I "read"- was the author of what you read there with a stopwatch? Somehow, I doubt it. I would imagine it depended upon the facts with which he was presented how long he took to review each case. However, he strikes me as a conscientious person who takes his job seriously and felt he had sufficient evidence that the law was followed and the information he was given did not justify him overriding the court. Vetos are rare, too, by any executive branch. Texas governors are very limited in what they can do by law. Our state constitutuion deliberately limits their power, so much so that there has often been discussion of scrappiing it and writing a new one. It was written at a time in the state's history when there was a lot of suspicion of government and the executive branch and the sentiment was for limiting power. Therefore, Texas has what is called a "weak governorship."