I can't see the logic...?

Question

I don't understand:
George Bush has banned stem cell research because he believes that the embryos are (potential) human lives, which should be preserved at all costs, yet he doesn't mind destroying life that already exists...?
I don't get it.

As far as i know, we went to war with Iraq because some idiot from the UN (The nuclear weapons inspector) said that there were nuclear weapons in Iraq. So we kill thousands of people, find no nuclear weapons, and won't get back out.

Answer 1

So let me get this clear,

you are for killing innocent babies.

but against killing terrorist?

and your logic is???????????

Answer 2

As far as i know, we went to war with Iraq because some idiot from the UN (The nuclear weapons inspector) said that there were nuclear weapons in Iraq. So we kill thousands of people, find no nuclear weapons, and won't get back out.


WTF.. Seriously. Where the hell did you get that
crap from? It's pretty much just the other way round.

Answer 3

Embryos may be potential human lives, but they don't have the time and resources invested into them that fully developed human beings have. Therefore, I think they should be used for stem cell research. Better to sacrifice the undeveloped to help the developed humans.

Further I think the fact that Federal funding has been restricted from stem cell research is outrageous. What about the say of those who *would* like their tax dollars spent on such research? It's not simply a case of majority rule, but it's Bush catering to the religious doctrine of his constituents and himself and therefore imposing it on everyone else by veto.

If you've ever had or known someone who's had a disease or condition which has its roots in heredity or genetic anomaly, I think you might feel similarly.

Stem cell research seems to have a great deal of potential to help us eliminate a lot of conditions which may currently be untreatable. I'd gladly choose to sacrifice unborn, undeveloped human lives for the sake of easing the suffering of developed ones.

Answer 4

How about this for logic,
the true representitive of Christianity in the world,who is not Bush, but the Pope; condemns stem cell research, human hybridisation, human cloning, abortion and also THE WAR IN IRAQ.

Answer 5

*sigh*

Again: stem cell research has not been banned in the United States. Stem cell research is going on in the United States even as we speak. What was banned was providing Federal funds to establish new lines of fetal stem cells. Existing lines of fetal stem cells are perfectly legal. Private funds to establish new lines of fetal stem cells is legal. And, as I understand it (I'm a mathematician, not a biologist), research with fetal stem cells is proving singularly unproductive at the moment, anyway.

Edit: We did not go to war with Iraq because someone in the UN said they had nuclear weapons. There were lots of reasons (no, not including oil, unless we really screwed that one up), but the prima facie case was that, by the cease-fire agreement at the end of the first Gulf War, Saddam agreed to destroy his weapons of mass destruction (and there is ample evidence that he had them, since he actually used them and all) and PROVIDE PROOF that he had done so. Providing that proof would have been easy - just don't kick the UN inspectors out of the country. Saddam got caught up in your basic testosterone cloud, kicked out the inspectors, and (whether he destroyed the weapons or not) failed to provide the proof that they had been destroyed. This is, legally, sufficient reason to resume the conflict.

Answer 6

You are right, we should have left Saddam and the other terrorists to kill their own people forever. That makes a lot more sence. War is about saving lives, not losing them. Haven't you ever heard people talk about laying down their lives in order to save someone else. Are you really so brainwashed by liberals that you are becoming a hippie?

Medicine should also be about saving lives. Any form of destroying human life in the name of medicine is immoral. Embryos are not "potential" human lives, they "are" human lives. If the life of an embryo did not exist, it would not continue to develop. Keep in mind that you were an embryo at one time too. You can't just step back and say that someone else is a worthless glob of cells because they are not as developed as you are.

I don't think your question was as much religious as political.

Answer 7

Well, we have to look at the deeper picture here. For several years now, the presidents have been setting up the New World Order. And with this New World Order, the United Nations want to get the population to a number that is controlled by them. So, they don't want to create any more people and want to kill as many as possible.

Answer 8

Logic had nothing to do with it. All the supporters among the heads of state are fundies in their particular Christiam realm. They knew that the public, except in the pre-conditioned USA, were strongly against participation in this crusade. They commited commoners and deluded non-commoners to go die and enhance Iran.

Answer 9

there is no ban on stem cell research as was stated before but waht i dont understand is how he can say that its not ok to "kill" a tiny group of cells that can save many people but he think its ok to put a person to death AFTER they have served many years in prison the bible says that we are to forgive those who want to repent.

Answer 10

The embryos are potentially life, but innocent life.

The war is supposedly justified based on the actions of 9-11, not innocent life. Unfortunately, a lot of innocent blood has been shed in the war.

Answer 11

There are a lot of things that G Dubya does where I fail to see the logic.