Defending the Truth

George W. Bush vetoed his first bill last week, and somewhat unsurprisingly it was a bill which would have given hope to millions of people who suffer from incurable diseases. Can't have that, can we?

Bush vetoed the bi-partisan stem cell research bill (which passed the Senate by 63 votes to 37) because apparently he's the most moral president ever and thinks that life is so sacred that performing revolutionary medical research on invisible clumps of cells is equivalent to walking up to someone and shooting them in the face. (But - and I must stress this point - it's not the same as dropping bombs on civilians. That's called "collateral damage in the fight for freedom.")

Strangely, while announcing the veto, Bush chose to surround himself with families who have all benefited from embryonic research and the destruction of numerous blastocysts. (Or as Tony Snow might put it, the mass-murder of defenseless babies.) The families had created so-called "snowflake babies" by "adopting" embryos which had been created during the in vitro-fertilization process, a medical procedure which, curiously, is championed by the very same people who think stem cell research is conducted via satanic ritual.

There are around 400,000 blastocysts currently stored in deep-freeze; the by-products of IVF treatment. Before the president vetoed the stem-cell research bill, they could have been used to search for cures for diabetes, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, and many other devastating illnesses. Now he's vetoed the bill, there are two options remaining: they can either be adopted, or thrown in the trash.

And incidentally, when the snowflake families "adopted" their embryos they had to go through the normal IVF procedure, which involves implanting several blastocysts into the womb in the hope that one will turn into a baby.

The other blastocysts? Let's just call them "collateral damage in the fight for fertilization."

So given the fact that around 70% of Americans approve of stem cell research, what was Bush trying to gain by vetoing the bill? Well, he's still in dire straits politically so Karl Rove obviously saw a good opportunity to throw a bone to his conservative base (or the "backwash" as Stephen Colbert might say).

Last week Karl explained the science behind stem cell research to the editorial board of the Denver Post, saying that there is "far more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells." Which is just plain wrong according to most stem cell research scientists.

Fortunately Rush Limbaugh was on the case, telling his listeners last week that "you need abortions" to get the embryos for stem cell research. Which is also just plain wrong. But at least Limbaugh stood with most stem cell research scientists and denounced Karl Rove's incorrect statement about adult stem cells. Just kidding. He said, "Karl Rove got in trouble the other day for telling the truth."
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/top10/253

Why is the far right so affraid of progress?

I just don't know.

George Bush is such an ass. We have the opportunity to help people and just now, Bush seems to grow a concious.

Most right-wingers I know don't even agree with Bush on this. My family is full of far right-wingers, as I stand more in the middle. They even think Bush is a complete moron. He is in the minority amongst his own party.

It's not a bad decision on his part, though. If he doesn't keep his support among Evangelicals, he would basically have, no support.

I think Bush's argument is he is not for creating life to destroy it, even for medical reasons. I haven't given this much thought and I don't have a position on it. It's scary that's for sure.

Saving lives is NEVER Scary.

And they have already proven that Stem Cells can be extracted from baby teeth, so there goes the creating life to save life worry (which seems silly at best).

Well I believe this was to use blastocysts that already exist, and are already frozen in storage. Blastocysts that will end up destroyed anyway. Why not save lives with these if they're going to be destroyed anyway? Unfortunately Bush doesn't see this.

And anyway, his whole theory on the issue totally expresses his complete hypocracy. He says we shouldn't destroy life to save life....yet, he's so willing to use military action in "pre-emptive warfare" to "save lives", even when over a hundred thousand civilians have died (oh but of coarse collateral damage is supposed to be expected).

And from abilical cords too, right? I heard that got shut down too. I may be wrong though.

HOOYAH!

Nope, you are right.

You know, some conservatives like to say that liberals want to save everything besides 'unborn babies'. One man said this to me. I replied that it was better than wanting to kill everything besides "unborn babies".