The President vetoed stem cell research because, "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life of the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our society needs to respect, so I vetoed it," Mr. Bush said.
My question is, if embryonic research supports taking innocent human life, why aren't we enforcing the murder laws against abortions?
2006-07-20 17:38:28 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/19/politics/main1818040.shtml?source=RSS&attr=Politics_1818040
Quote was taken from CBS online
2006-07-20 17:39:10 · update #1
Stem cell research does present a moral dilemma .I think that stem cell research could bring hope to those who suffer from some diseases,. I think that it should be looked at an opportunity in the same way organ donation has profoundly changed the lives of the recipients.We are all aware that the waiting lists are long and the list of donors does not nearly fill the need.I think some faiths do not believe in blood transfusions or organ donation.I must respect their right to their beliefs.Many people have had their health improved from procedures that would be called the next thing to witchcraft in the past.To those people it must be bittersweet to know their life was improved by someone else's tragedy. The reality is that aborted fetuses are considered medical waste ( I detest the term) and abortion seems to be a realityWhat lengths would we want medical research to go to if it were our child whose life would benifit from such research?It is a rhetorical question intended to just make us think before we react.As parents we all want the best for our children and want them to haveloving,healthy and successful lives.Where would you draw the line? Would you use the benefits of stem cell research to save your child?To tell the truth,I don't know but I think I would.What is your position on organ donation or artificial limbs,pacemakers etc.Do we just accept poor health or do we try to find cures or at the very least find ways to improve the quality of life.
2006-07-21 04:47:49 · answer #1 · answered by gussie 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The President cannot abolish abortion, that isn't within his scope of power. Veto new laws: Yes Abolish old laws: No.
The reason we don't enforce murder laws is because some people don't believe that abortion is killing a life, they believe you are just 'removing tissue'.
OR
They believe that just because the life isn't wanted it's alright to end it.
Of course with that logic, I should be able to kill my mother and father when they get so old and are a burden.
Or, hey. The Jews were a burden to Hitler, so he had them killed. What's the big deal?
How about when my teenager is going crazy and he becomes 'not wanted' I should just be able to kill him then right. Well, I suppose I would need to do that in a hospital right? Just take him into the doctors office and have them cut his brain stem and suck the brains out of his head.
Too inhumane?
How about we drown him in salt water?
Or better yet, lett's just cut him to pieces.
=============================================
Doesn't that all sound like horror movie stuff.
Hmmmmmm.
2006-07-21 00:50:00 · answer #2 · answered by edaily777 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The president would love to take away a woman's right to choose. Because of the law, it is up to each state. A dozen or so states have laws on the books so that if Roe vs Wade is ever overturned (and the chances are very good that it will be) then all of these states will make it a criminal offense for a woman to have an abortion- even in cases of rape or incest. So another civil right is hanging by a thread. A decision which should be between a woman and her doctor, is going to be decided by the government. Sad. and kinda scary.
2006-07-21 00:47:39 · answer #3 · answered by roscoedeadbeat 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Murder laws against abortions??? Last I knew abortion is still legal in this country. But if President Bush does get a say in this issue, I have this feeling he would vote for the overturning of Roe V Wade.
2006-07-21 00:42:55 · answer #4 · answered by Searcher 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because he doesn't have the power to outright abolish it. The supreme court must over-turn the original ruling for Roe Vs. Wade.
Simply put its as close to abolishing abortion as he can come.
And abortion is not murder and its legal,so thats why he isn't enforcing "Murder" laws. how can it be legal by the supreme court, and murder?That makes no sense.
2006-07-21 00:42:13 · answer #5 · answered by Sweetask 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wasn't this abortion question answered twenty years ago by the Supreme Court?
This is the U.S. There are checks and balances in our legal system. We have three branches of government that create laws.
The president can't "abolish" anything by himself.
2006-07-21 00:47:39 · answer #6 · answered by Zzzax 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Be cause it is WRONG to take away a woman's right to choose - we cannot predict every situation that might lead to abortion
Also, women will get abortions any way & it might as well be safe for them to do so
Bush is in this for himself - he is killing soldiers in Iraq while gas prices are horrendous!! He doesn't actually give a crap about women, babies, or the average working person.....he just wants to make money & supress women's rights
2006-07-21 01:07:06 · answer #7 · answered by Catcanscratch 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's up to the Supreme Court. And he changed his mind about stem cell research because Nancy Reagan talked him into it.
2006-07-21 00:43:34 · answer #8 · answered by lavendergirl 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the Supreme Court has already ruled that Abortion is legal see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_vs_wade
2006-07-21 00:44:15 · answer #9 · answered by Hey 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The president alone cant abolish abortion. I hope God gives him the guts to try though.
2006-07-21 00:42:10 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋