Guest Mike256bit Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 I just read two rather inspiring news reports today: Gay marriage ban doesn't pass house vote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13918660/ Senate approves stem cell bill: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5193216.stm Bush's push for the ban is failing, but he promised to veto the stem cell research. Tony Snow, White House Spokesman, said "The simple answer is he thinks murder's wrong" (see second link). Sorry, that's the wrong answer, Tony, since I'm pretty sure Bush has had his hand in killing innocent civillians, let alone that he supports capital punishment. How can a man who talks so much about unification be so intolerant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chibi4president Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 "The simple answer is he thinks murder's wrong" Well, what does he call what's going on in Iraq? How can anyone equate using an embryo for research with murder? It's obvious that killing a cell with no soul, no brain, and no feelings is a far cry from killing a living, breathing, fully formed person. I think Bush is simply intolerant of scientific advancement in general. I for one hope that Congress overrides his veto--it's time somebody stuck it to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Adara Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 I think his objection has more to do with his personal religious beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 Well, what does he call what's going on in Iraq? How can anyone equate using an embryo for research with murder? It's obvious that killing a cell with no soul, no brain, and no feelings is a far cry from killing a living, breathing, fully formed person. I think Bush is simply intolerant of scientific advancement in general. I for one hope that Congress overrides his veto--it's time somebody stuck it to him. I think the "no brain" part would be the best to use for this argument. The other two touch too much apon spirituality and religion to be used effectivly. We need to eradicate religious bias in the government, but I fear that not only would that be impossible, but even if it WERE possible, we;d be even MORE screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike256bit Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 I really try my best to understand moral obligations -- I mean, for a long time I was adamently pro-life, under the belief that it's wrong to rob the chance of life from that which could be. But as I grew up, I started to understand that many more people than just that person who 'could be' are affected in child-birth -- family being the number one. And even still, with stem-cell research, Bush has the chance to help thousands of people, and not rob them of their chance at life. He has the opportunity to say "Go, my scientist, save my nation and even the world from that which we thought we could not conquer." In a way, he's spitting in the faces of the hopeful just so he can feel better about not "killing" (and I quote that since I think to be killed one has to have more than just amino acids) embryos which, for all we know, could be serial rapists. But about this being a moral issue? This is what Arthur Caplan, Ph D thinks: When Bush uttered his first confused words on the subject of embryonic stem cell research five years ago in August 2001, he said that he was opposed to embryonic stem cell research since it involved the destruction of human life.He noted that there were embryos, and many of them, already in existence in infertility clinics and left unwanted by those who created them. But he held it was wrong to use those in research. Instead, he told us, he had found a way out of the dilemma of how to do embryonic stem cell research without destroying any embryos. Oh, so there are already embryos bound for destruction? Tell us more, doctor. In fact, if the president was so concerned about the fate of embryos, why did he not speak out to close infertility programs around the country that destroy embryos? Why did he not try to shut down privately funded embryonic stem cell research? And, if the president was so worried about destructive embryo research, why did he not propose a ban on bringing across our borders any cure or therapy that might be discovered overseas if it was based on embryonic stem cell research? His moral obligation is a sham. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.