Not too long ago, on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart had Ramesh Ponnuru on as a guest, and they had the following exchange:
STEWART: Well, let me put it to you this way, and I apologize. The President said--let's talk about stem cells, since you don't want to talk about abortion--the President said, "I do not condone the taking of innocent life to save life. And I assume that's your position on stem-cell research.
PONNURU: Yeah, that's right.
STEWART: But couldn't you say that that was the exact justification of the Iraqi war?
...
STEWART: But this is--what they consider "collateral damage" in that war somehow is not acceptable when it might lead to a cure for Parkinsons.
How do you counter that? The guest basically stammered; he didn't have a satisfying answer. Now, I love Jon Stewart, but certainly he didn't come up with an indefensible argument. I can't think of any rebuttal but surely one must exist. Can anyone else think of one, even if you don't agree with it?
2006-09-18
00:50:55
·
11 answers
·
asked by
.
7
in
Politics