Ok let me rephrase my first question: What's more important-?

Question

-potentially saving the lives of people in our OWN country right now by going ahead with research into embryonic stem cell research or sending thousands of young troops to their CERTAIN death in a war driven by the greed for more money and more power, with a smoke screen of wanting to promote democracy and freedom? I'd like some UNbiased answers this time. AKA-from people who have done their homework on BOTH of these subjects [stem cells and the war] and not from people who love Bush so much that their blinded by the FACTS.

Answer 1

Stem cells have not saved one life. Nor have they created a single cure for anything. Stem cell research has thus far proven to be a complete bust. HOWEVER, research on adult cells HAS saved lives and produced cures. Why continue to funnel money into something that has shown to be a bust when there is a practical and much more ethical alternative that has been proven invaluable?

As for your drivel about the war being "driven by greed for more money and more power".... uh, where is all that money and power? I for one, have not seen hide nor hair of it. And how is promoting democracy and freedom a smokescreen? You realize that whether we're there or not, pretty much all of those people want us and our way of life dead. At least at this point, when complete chaos breaks out (yes, I'm working under the theory that we are not there yet and that it is definitely coming) in the middle east we will have a foothold, a base, and a point of moral superiority to all the snivelling whiners who opposed this war. As for your "certain death" comment -- PUH-LEASE. Get a grip!

So, in answer to your question, sending soldiers to fight a war which has to be waged is more important that investing in a useless, immoral research scheme.

Answer 2

Bush is making moral judgments and using the force of his position to enforce them. It's not a rational decision. It's purely political.

It's also not a question of picking one or the other. The bill was presented. If Bush doesn't' sign it, and Congress is still in session 10 days from now, then it becomes law anyway. So, Bush either ignores it, or tries to score political points by vetoing it.

But that's a few minutes of his personal time, and independent of any efforts that could, should, have or have not been spent dealing with other issues.

Bush is doing exactly what he accuses "activist judges" of doing -- overturning laws passed by the legislature based on his personal view of morality. He's did it with the stem-cell bill, he's done it through signing statements where he says he won't enforce laws he doesn't like, and he's done it with laws regulating electronic surveillance (FISA ) or treatment of prisoners (McCain Anti-Torture Bill) when he chose to ignore them.

And he'll keep doing it because he doesn't think the executive authority should be limited by any other branch.

As much as I think his decision is irrational, this is one of the few times he's actually followed the proper constitutional requirements for expressing his opinions within the procedures set forth by law. So, do we respect him for actually following the rules this time, or criticize him for being stupid because he's blocking valid medical research based purely on religious dogma? Tough call.

Answer 3

I completely agree with you, that man's priorities are messed up and we're suffering for it.