Thursday, June 21, 2007

Veto Manifesto

"Taking a life...In the hopes of saving a life...Is unethical...And there are other choices."

President Bush said that yesterday as he vetoed the stem cell research bill. I was stunned when I heard it on the radio. Did he really say that? Does he ever actually think about the things he says or does he just read his script and go ride his bike?

In his veto statement, Bush has issued a pacifist manifesto. Read it again...

"Taking a life...In the hopes of saving a life...Is unethical...And there are other choices."

How can a human being prosecute a war after making that statement? How could he live with himself after ordering the bombing of a home in Baghdad and killing 54 men, women, and children because a "source" told him that Saddam might be in it?
I guess taking a life in the hopes of killing someone is OK?

I don't see how these people live with themselves.

By no stretch of logic can a blastocyst be considered a human life in the first place. It has no chance of surviving unless it is implanted in a woman's uterus and a lot of things go perfectly. In the normal course of events, hundreds of thousands of blastocysts are created which will never be implanted. They are destroyed in the overwhelming majority of cases. We could use cells taken from a few of them and more than likely save lives, heal the crippled, make life better for untold numbers of humans. One man who has proven to have deeply flawed capabilities of judgement, a dishonest man, a cowardly man, a man who cannot even see the condemnation his own words make of his own actions, has sentenced thousands more to suffering and death.

Let's end his reign of meanness. We have the power.



1 comment:

  1. Anonymous4:21 PM

    I think that you may be able to relate more to the president if you were just a little more "business minded", which is a strong marker of whether someone decides to label themselves as a conservative or republican. Government funding for stem cell research (and trying to catch up with the rest of the world in the field) would be a horrible business decision for the current healthcare system. The system we currently have appears to be more inefficient the more I learn about it. The amount of efficiency in the form of therapy/cures/etc that would come with stem cell technology is in direct conflict with the current path taken by the healthcare system of America.
    It can be viewed from several angles: insurance companies don't want to spend money so they pay doctors and medical directors to deny treatment for many cases, while drug companies don't want cures (which is what stem cell tech may provide) because the companies make tons of money *treating* diseases and to provide a cure would be business suicide. There is a direct conflict of interest when it comes to the American healthcare system, and the democracy that should protect its citizens appears to have come down with the same type of cancer that drug companies don't want to find a cure for...

    Our elected officials have been bought by the evil drug and insurance empires. The decisions and policies produced by Washington do not have the American people in mind, they have their own wallets in mind. Bush's veto is an excellent example of what the green opiate does to the brain.