Shouldn't his moral stance on preserving human lives be same across the board????? Or does he consider 4 day old frozen embryos left over from IVF more "human" than a child born to a mother?
2006-07-20 06:09:02 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Dear Neocon Geniuses: When you detonate a nuclear weapon, it doesn’t just look for “bad” guys. It takes away EVERYTHING including babies.
2006-07-20 06:26:50 · update #1
ts: Yes. I'm hung up on them! It's what I do for a living.
2006-07-20 10:24:41 · update #2
It exposes his moral hypocrisy,so don't expect clear answers from the Right,only tripe like "the two dont compare,dahling".
2006-07-20 06:15:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
From the Presidents perspective, these are apples and oranges. There are no babies threatening to attack America. There are hostile countries, regimes, religions and small groups that pose a serious hazard to America.
As for the use of Nuclear weapons, there is also a certain amount of lobbying going on touting the usefulness of the research and how it creates jobs but clearly these jobs could just as easily be created in Bioresearch. It's a matter of preference.
I suspect Mr. Bush is strongly influenced by his beliefs in God and his status as a father. No person understands the love a parent can feel until they become one.
I don't think you will find a real satisfactory answer to your question because it doesn't really look like Nueclear weapons are really necessary anymore other than as a part of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) scenario and what sense does that make?
2006-07-20 06:17:52 · answer #2 · answered by Dean T 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
From a constitutional standpoint, the federal government has the duty to defend this nation and provide the arms. Nuclear weapons fall into that lawful category. Funding of scientific research is not found in the Constitution, even though the gov't has been funding this type of thing for a long time.
Defending the US by maintaining and upgrading the nuclear arsenal is open to debate, but both sides can be considered ethical based on their beliefs.
Destroying human lifeforms, regardless of age, for the sole purpose of science, is considered by some to be immoral. It is the very crux of the ethics vs. technology debate. It is a serious debate that merits consideration and contemplation.
These are, however, two completely different issues with a completely different basis of debate.
2006-07-20 06:36:30 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You've made a great point, it should be the same across the board but it isn't. If he's so concerned about the life of unborn children, why didn't he go after the frozen embryos from IVF??? I fear he's making a lot of his decisions from FAR right neocons who also happen to be the fundamentalist Christians that give the others a bad rep................
2006-07-20 06:16:23 · answer #4 · answered by carpediem 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Under the Conservative views once an egg is fertilized it is a human, this is the only and strongest argument against abortion.
He is, as he should, follow his party's line on this, as it is one of the major platforms. Keep in mind, there is no ban on the research only absence of Federal funding for such programs.
But I can not agree with his veto, there are far too many lives that can be helped from this research.
2006-07-20 06:22:10 · answer #5 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A very simple answer. Keep the embryos intact so that they can replace some of the people who are killed in a nuclear holocaust. It's a means of making sure that the world can be repopulated.
2006-07-20 06:32:11 · answer #6 · answered by gshewman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
President Bush does support stem cell research. You can get stem cells from other sources, and no babies are harmed in the process. There are stem cells in the umbilicle cord when a baby is born, once it is born the cord is thrown away. But you can get them from there, and not touch the baby.
2006-07-20 16:35:37 · answer #7 · answered by J_shizzle 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is a very good point but the right can't answer that one. Look at the answer above me. How intelligent. But most people support stem cell research. Even Nancy Reagan.
2006-07-20 06:53:28 · answer #8 · answered by kelly 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cause he is the 'decider' and he 'hears the voices'!
but dont worry, if you are rich you can still get the benefits of stem cell research; also, is it not interesting that Republican Dr. Bill Frist, the majority leader, is against the Pres Veto (he also owns a chain of hospitals)
2006-07-20 06:23:54 · answer #9 · answered by I.M. 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am not pro bush but, you can compare the two like apples and grapes they are not the same. Suppport of nucular weapons are to defend you and I. His non support of stem cell research is because he's pro life and to support stem cell research he would loss many supporters and be called pro abortion. Yeah weapons take life no dought about that but, it's done under the ideal of defening us from enemy's not to furher science.
2006-07-20 06:20:42 · answer #10 · answered by ally'smom 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He is a Republican and a Politician, they never make sense. Go a head and kill everyone in the world, but don't touch the embryos. Besides he is suppose to be looking at the overall picutre and he needs glasses.
2006-07-20 06:15:26 · answer #11 · answered by redhotboxsoxfan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋