For further confusion
Stem cell research - one of the supposed "hot topics" from last year's election season, is back in the news.Senators Urge Vote After House Bucks Bush on Stem-Cell Funding
The skinny on this is that if this was truly a hard party line issue, the Republican majority would have defeated it. But it's not that clear cut - as 50 Republicans broke from the party ranks to vote for this. It's not enough to overturn a Bush veto - which he has vowed to do (and which would be his first veto ever), but it does certainly raise some questions to me:
1) If this is such a clear "Christian" issue, like it was made out to be in November, why do so many Republicans (the self proclaimed "Christian party"), not agree on it?
2) If the issue is that it is wrong to support "science that destroys life in order to save life" (W. Bush), why was it okay to do any research with the existing stem cells that Bush approved four years ago?
3) Since these embryos will NEVER actually get used in creating lives beyond the embryonic state, are they really destroying life?
4) If we KNEW for a fact that this research would find cures for spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, etc. - instead of just that it COULD - would that make it worth it?
5) If it is a "critical ethical line" (W again), to decide whether one life is worth destroying for the chance to save another, how can Republicans like Bush support the death penalty?
6) If it is that same "critical ethical line", how can you support a pre-emptive war?
Please, someone give me some answers! Thank you.
posted by gurufrisbee @ 12:46 PM
