President Bush vetoed the first bill of his five-and-a-half year administration Wednesday by rejecting a measure that would provide more federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.
Stem cells are considered by a number of scientists to be a possible key to developing cures for many difficult diseases and medical problems such as Alzheimer's, paralysis and other brain-function disorders. Many scientists say the embryonic stem cells hold more hope than their adult-derived counterparts because they are the cells that multiply into the many types of cells that build the human body.
Bush announced his veto standing before 18 families with "snowflake babies," children born after frozen embryos that were not used were adopted by other couples. In August 2001, Bush permitted existing federal research to continue, but has advocated against further government funding for that specific type of lab work. He and others argue that stem cells that come from human embryos — unlike stem cells derived from adults — can only be harvested through the loss of a human life. Read more.
If YOU were president, would you veto this bill? Why or why not?
Click on the links in the boxes on the right to read recent stories on this topic, then e-mail us at email@example.com.
Here's what FOX Fans are saying:
"The bill on stem cell research is too broad. If I were president, I would veto it. It is possible to research stem cells using the umbilical cords of already born, healthy babies. There are other facets of the bill that cause me to question the motive of its present form as well." — Y. G. (Lake Charles, LA)
"I'd rather pay for this than the mess we have in Iraq. We need this bill to pass." — Vi (Illinois)
"Stem cell research is America’s Holocaust. President Bush is bravely defending our most vulnerable children." — Bill (Wilbraham, MA)
"The president needs to realize that the testing of stem cells does no harm to any human being. Someday the president might need the test results for his own health and well being. The public seems to want this testing for improvements of everybody's health." — David
"I would absolutely veto it. The 'discardable' embryos could become adopted babies. And who knows what those very people can contribute to our society." — Sandy (Oregon)
"I wouldn't veto it. The one thing all the people miss is that they will throw these things away! They'll become waste anyway, so why not try to do something productive with them? Sure, the medical companies will do research with the cells they have, but if everyone could get involved in stem cell research, more people could possibly be cured or helped faster. And to me, that overrides anything else." — Herb (Midland, LA)
"I would veto a bill funding embryonic stem cell research. I applaud President Bush for not 'cowing down' to all the pressure. Contrary to what some people try to justify as ethical, a human embryo is a life. It is not right to force our taxpayer dollars to pay for this hyped up research for something that I believe is so wrong. Other avenues of research can be explored, such as umbilical cord stem cell research and adult stem cell research, without sacrificing a human life.” — Nancy (Cookeville, TN)
"I would veto the bill without hesitation. Evil is evil no matter what good end is projected." — Jeremiah (Allendale, NJ)
"I have fought multiple sclerosis for seven years and I would absolutely veto this bill because I could not justify taking the life of another so that mine might possibly improve." — Colleen
"There are many people who could benefit greatly from stem cell research, including those with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. If President Bush vetoes this bill, I hope Congress has the courage and intelligence to override his veto." — Betty (Pine Grove, PA)
"I would veto the bill because research has had no success in developing healing cells from embryo stem cells." — Frank
"The government does not have the right to impose religious principles on the people. I would not veto the bill." — James
"I would certainly veto this bill because it makes no sense scientifically or politically. But most of all, why force tax payers to fund research they strongly feel is wrong?" — Josh (San Diego, CA)
"I would not veto the stem cell bill. Everyone talks of alternative methods of curing diseases, yet no one can say what they are, how long before a cure, or how costly these 'alternatives' will be. Even if you want to define a stem cell as a living and breathing human being, from the few that are used come the cure for the millions." — Doug
"I would veto the bill to prohibit American taxpayer money from being allocated to embryonic stem cell research. Private entities may still conduct the research and anyone supporting embryonic stem cell research is free to donate their money. Enough taxpayer money is wasted every year by the government already." — Brian (Leawood, KS)
"I would support a federally-funded bill for stem cell research, as it will no doubt benefit people with varying forms of paralysis and other diseases. It is a nonpartisan issue." — Barbara
"Yes, I would veto it. The convenience of stem cell availability and the promise of curing diseases does not justify destruction of human life." — William
"No, I would not veto the bill. I saw a show the other night where a mouse whose hind legs were completely paralyzed became normal because the mouse was injected with medicine made through stem cell research. Think of all the wonderful people who could be helped." — Anonymous FOX Fan
"I would veto the stem cell research bill. You can get everything you need from adult stem cells, so why would you use unborn humans? It’s unethical." — Mary Anne
"Yes I would veto it — let's not give anyone more excuses for destroying unborn human life. There are other options that can be explored." — Schar
"I would not veto a bill on stem cell research, because we need it, and the fool that wants to veto it may get help from the research one day." — John (Gulfport, MS)
"This is not the job of the federal government. This is the job of the free market." — Rex
"I believe that we cannot let the rest of the world pass us by in any area of science, including stem cell research. I would not veto the bill that funds research using embryo cells, which would otherwise get destroyed." — Don (Parker, CO)
"I would veto the bill. There are too many other avenues that could be explored, including harvesting adult cells." — Helen
"Yes, I would veto a bill for the U.S. government to fund embryonic stem cell research. If the American people realized that life was being snuffed out by it, they would vote against it. The government has no business spending our money on something so many of us are against." — Ruth (San Diego, CA)
"Americans may have the right to kill their babies before they leave the womb, but the taxpayer should not be required to contribute to farming human beings and then destroying them. As much as science may find benefits, I believe the line needs to be drawn with the veto pen in this case." — Chuck (Fulks Run, VA)
"No, I would not veto this bill, if it passed with a majority in both houses, based solely on my own moral stance. Such a veto would be the same as a filibuster, which is an impediment to the democratic process. Ethical stances on scientific research should not be part of our partisan political arena." — Ed (Redmond, WA)
"I would veto it not on ethical grounds, but because it is an unnecesary taxpayer expense. There are plenty of pharmaceutical companies that will do this research on their own, faster and more efficiently, without the government getting involved." — Patrick (San Diego, CA)
"Considering the necessary advances in medical research, amount of effort, time and money put into the research, and considering that the embryos would be discarded, I feel that stem cell research is absolutely necessary, and fundamental to the long-term development of the medical sciences." — Lucile
"Embryonic stem cell research values one human life over another and has never been able to produce even one cure for one disease or the definitive promise of one. On the contrary, adult stem cell research has initiated many promising discoveries. Why don't we put the peoples' money where the best results have been achieved instead of buying into the scientific hype?" — Anonymous FOX Fan