stem cell research and the war in Iraq.... .i dont get it?

Question

i'm a little confused about the whole thing here....

i dont like the idea of abortion, to me, it seems wrong. i would never do it. but i dont think i have the right to choose whats illegal for others.

Bush's cabinet is against stem cell research because its "destroying life", but he's saying that we need to "prepare for more casualties" in our military.

why is it ok to say "you cant kill one life" while saying "we're going to kill our enemies, and some of you are going to die too" ?

and if you say that the war is saving lives, please admit that stem cell research does too. there are 72 known applications already from said research.

Answer 1

1995 - President Bill Clinton signs into law the Dickey Amendment which prohibited Federally appropriated funds to be used for research where human embryos would be either created or destroyed.

Answer 2

I really don't get it either. I, personally,would not choose adoption as an option. But who am I to tell someone else they can't. It's their body and they can do what they want with it. This seems to go into the category of stuff the government should stay out of. If it's made illegal, people will still try to get it by illegal means which will probably be less safe. Some things I think the government should stay out of. Then there's always religion. I think that's why there's so much debate over it. I see your point though. Stem cell research has a lot of possibilities that people just ignore.

Answer 3

i honestly have to say that i totally agree with you. why is it that bus decides he can go to some random country and kill innocent people there, plus losing many young american lives throughout the process. i mean if he really cared about "the justice in the world" why doesn't he go do something in third world countrys? what about the genocide in darfer? or injustices in africa and everywhere else!
its just stupid how he's defending esc when technically they're not even "dying" i mean yes they do have potential to grow up into a perfectly fine human being.. but if you really had to pick one out of the two.. a already living person who is living breathing feeling etc. versus a cell that doesn't have a care in the world at this point.
and PLUS even if we don't use the cells and make them grow into babies.. whos to say that they won't get horrible diseases like the millions and billions of other poeple in the world and die of such diseases anyway

Answer 4

okay, first of all, you can never outlaw abortion, all you can do is remove federal funding for it. if Roe v Wade were to be overturned, the only effect would be that abortion would become a state issue. it may be legal in your state and illegal in the next one.I fail to see what stem cells research has to do with the war, tho..wars have been with us since Cain slew Able, Stem Cell research is fairly new

Answer 5

America will be blessed if people can ask questions like this. More so, if the question is asked to the local politicians over the phone. Anyway, the simple answer to this excellent question is Politics/Vote (for stem cell research) and Politics/Democracy(?)/stealing-wealth for attacking another country.

Answer 6

I get your point but there is a difference between sending volunteers to war and killing unborn life that did not volunteer. The fetus has no defense where as military have guns.

Answer 7

The arguement isn't stem-cell research (scr). It is *embryonic* scr, creating life for the sole purpose of destroying it. Now, whichever side of the abortion issue you argue, you have to question the morality of embryonic scr. From everything I've heard about it, scr has yielded far more useable results than the embryonic version.

Answer 8

there are NO applications from EMBRYONIC stem cell research


Do you not understand that we see the disgusting irony in killing a baby to save a life?

War is different. That is a NECESSARY evil, and is done to keep those people from killing others. Killing babies so movies starts don't get the shakes is not the same thing.

Answer 9

Would you say there is a difference between killing someone who is in your house, meaning to do harm, versus just killing an innocent person you don't know? Either way, someone is dead. Most sane people would argue that self-defence (scenerio 1) is okay, while murder (scenerio 2) is wrong. Some view the war as scenerio 1 and other's do not. It's all on what side of the fence you fall on. It's just like liberals who like killing babies, but not criminals.

Answer 10

fortunately only Republicans have a direct link to God and He told "em abortion is a no-no, capital punishment is good, as long as not too many innocent people are killed, and God admitted to them He enjoys a good war as long as it is initiated by America, but He does have some concern when the war is based on erroneous info.