Is Dubya a hypocrite?

Question

He cares so much about the lives of unaware blobs of tissue that he won't allow research that could save millions of lives, but he'll eagerly send thousands of troops over to Iraq to be slaughtered and/or slaughter innocent civilians. Are the lives of the troops and civilians worth less than that of the blobs? Troops and civilians often have lives ahead of them, and families who depend on them. Embryos in utero are essentially parasites (they feed off their mothers and then **** inside of them), but they're worth far more than millions if not billions of people.

Does anyone else spy a flaw in Dubya's logic?

Answer 1

I notice the gaping hole in your 'logic'.

You fail to note the actual truth of the matter, that he did not lightly send troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, and that he sent them for very specific and necessary purposes.

To stop the oppressive terrorist-supporting Taliban, and to stop the murderous terrorist-supporting tyrant Saddam Hussein. TheTaliban, Saddam and the terrorists they supported were responsible for a continuing history of murder and evil, and needed to be stopped.

The fact remains that to eliminate these people, it is required to use military force, and that necessarily entails people dying.

But to compare the rational political decision for war, with the decision not to fund the deliberate destruction of human life form simply for scientific study, is not a rational comparison.

They are two completely separate issues that have no logical points of comparison. Your simplistic view of these two issues fails to illuminate either.

Answer 2

Well, I have never quite thought of babies as parasites nor have I made the connection between war and stem cell research. However, I guess I can see how you connect the two. I don't take a stand for or against abortion but I do believe we SHOULD allow for the research; it can save lives and I think it is crazy to let their lives be a complete waste by just aborting them. The war is a whole other subject in my opinion...
To anwser your question, though, I don't really see the connection. Bush is a hypocrite however, and a lot worse than that.

Answer 3

You were once a blob and a parasite...oh, yeah, you still are!

You set yourself up for that one!

YOUR logic makes no sense. I am thankful to our brave troops who fight the evil Islamic terrorists that want us all dead.

Can we abort you?

Answer 4

All I see is an angry little blob, ranting.

Answer 5

Hmmm. Very passionate question from a former blob! But we won't hold that against you.

Regarding the protection of embryos, the issue at hand resides in the capitalist tendencies of our country, and the buying habits of a well-to-do yet vastly immoral population subset. You see, if we were to allow stem cell research to be conducted using manufactured stem cells from subsequently discarded embryos, it would take about 24 hours for a gray market for embryos to be developed. Americans, and I am one, are almost pathologically entrepreneurial, and given the tenets of supply and demand, the demand for stem cells would grow and will grow, enormously, and to keep up with that demand, the method of embryo creation, dissection and disposal would be commercialized. No doubt about it. If anyone were to take a few minutes to think about that, most sane people would be disgusted by it. Embryos have no advocate, but the mother and the government at this point. And unfortunately, there are a lot of mothers out there who wouldn't flinch from selling embryos to medical science in order to help the very few who today can afford stem cell treatment. As it stands now, there is a pent up demand for stem cell research from those that can pay for it (small minority of the population), and a vast population of embryo hosts (women), quite a few of them who could possibly consider embryos not what they are (developing humans), but what science tells them they are (valuable assets worth considerable money). It's not sufficient to call embryos blobs and move on. You have to take the argument to its natural or likely conclusion, and assess the morality of that state. It's not so pretty.

As for the thousands of troops sent to slaughter innocent civilians or be slaughtered (ostensibly by these 'innocent' civilians), you have to consider the rules and laws around enlistment. Each of these men and women were (or should have been) fully aware of their commitment and the harm that could be visited upon them and by them in a theater of war. None were fished out of their mothers' wombs and carved up. Yes they have lives ahead of them and families who depend on them. They are fully aware of the value of their life and the type of job they signed up to do, voluntarily (no draft has been in place for decades). Their families are also fully aware of their obligations and potential for harm or death. Most of these families are proud of their serving fathers and mothers and sons and daughters. They are sacrificing their lives, to ensure that all Americans here at home have lives ahead of them as well. That is the nature of the military, the nature of defense and war, and the nature of human civilization: a specialized subset of our populations defends us from harm. That's their job, these men and women volunteered for the job, they are fully aware of the potential of harm and death, and they are sworn to follow their orders and commander in chief, whoever the public elected that commander to be. That is how our system, the best in the world, works today and has worked for centuries, very well I might add.

If you consider yourself a parasite and your mother a host, you perhaps have a very dim or skewed view of human biology and life in general. I don't think of you as a parasite, nor any other human being. That is how humans are created and evolve. There's nothing parasitic about it, in fact, short of pregnancy by rape, all embryos are created by choice. Their only defenders seem to be those mothers with an ounce of morality, and those that support one of Bush's few sensible positions.

War causes injury and death to all humans in the theater. Civilians, administrators, soldiers, statesmen. There is no sanitary or precise way to relegate war to combatants only. This is not the Greek or Roman era where war is confined to large fields or open waters. That being said, perhaps we've too soon forgotten the innocent civilians killed by Saddam, his sons, and his cohorts. Or were they not innocent then, but only innocent when the U.S. military is involved? The most important interests to an American must be AMERICAN interests, otherwise, you have a nation of millions of self-serving individuals, not willing to defend themselves or their neighbors, and willing to trade all rights and securities for the absence of conflict. That is cowardice. The war may be conducted in a completely pathetic manner, but that doesn't have to be. The war is being fought both to introduce freedom and democracy and a voice for those innocent civilians, but also to root out those who seek to oppress and attack freedom and democracy worldwide. Those are not innocent civilians. Those are divisive, destructive, fear-mongering monsters who enjoy death as a means to heaven rather than service and compassion for others.

Focusing your negative energy on one man who, though not the most able statesman or leader in our history has been able to hold back the violent and totalitarian agenda of Al Qaeda and similar movements from reaching US shores again, is rather simplistic. There are complex issues requiring thorough answers, and pointing fingers at someone who will have no responsibility in two short years is not an efficient method of protest or dissent. What would likely be more productive and useful is to ask what we can do about stem cell research that will help those who could benefit from it, while maintaining the sanctity of unborn life. What would likely also be more productive and useful is to ask what we can do to deter sectarian violence and strengthen the foundation of democracy in Iraq, and help them run their affairs in a peaceful and productive way for all those innocent civilians we are still there to protect and help.

Hypocrisy is more than just an action that does not resonate with previous thought or speech. Hypocrisy is also found in the empty protestation of events without succinct thought and alternatives being offered in return.

Answer 6

No, not like you or a typical Liberal Democrat.

Answer 7

definately not any more than any other politcian