Thursday, July 20, 2006

"A Victory of Conscience"

In order to have a "victory of conscience," you first must have one. What is most disturbing about the first veto every signed by W is that he claims to have signed it based on moral grounds, not on scientific fact. Again, we witness the wheels of hypocrisy actively spinning in the whitehouse.

Leadership of faith over fact gets you nothing but a slap in the face by the president. By vetoing the bill, W says he would rather have embryos flushed down the drain. Is that pro-life or pro-death?
Bush said the veto was not a setback for science but rather a victory of conscience, as taxpayers should not pay for research that destroys human embryos — even in the service of obtaining stem cells to develop potential cures for disease.

"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush told a crowd of supporters, including children born of the type of fertility clinic embryos that would have been used for research under the bill. "It crosses a moral boundary that our society needs to respect, so I vetoed it."
W essentially flips off the American people again by telling them their opinions and desires don't matter - remember, that a bill has to secure a majority of votes in Congress before it gets to the president's desk.

My bet is that we can come up with a fair number of moral boundaries that the W, Rove and Co have crossed that we wish they hadn't. But we don't have the ability to veto this president and his administration. Believe me, if I could, I would.

4 comments:

glenda said...

The American people are behind it, and they are breaking ranks on this one. It will get passed eventually.

dusty said...

Oh yeah..we took the moral highground when we slammed all those folks and left them there to rot into GItmo didn't we?

this bs is another play out of the Rovian book on how to win an election..

isabelita said...

Maybe the intelligent design "scientists" wil find a way to get female pigs to incubate litters of "snowflake babies." Hmmm, maybe I'll get started on a dystopic novel!

Anonymous said...


Bush's 'moral boundary' train left the station years ago

NY TImes, To the Editor:

As a nurse and health care provider for the last 30 years, I have always been concerned with the ethical issues surrounding health care. I am confused by the argument that the stem cell research bill has violated President Bush’s principles on the sanctity of human life.

To me, the debate regarding the sanctity of human life should begin with the whole concept of in vitro fertilization. I am not opposed to in vitro fertilization, but we must admit that we have already crossed the line between science and ethics with this technology.

It is disingenuous to support in vitro fertilization and not support stem cell research. With in vitro fertilization, precious health care dollars are spent creating embryos to satisfy individuals’ selfish need for children who match their own DNA. There are so many adoptable children already born into this world that it seems immoral to create “adoptable embryos.”

The ethical and moral obligation lies with saving lives, not saving potential lives.

JoAnne Gatti-Petito
Turnbull, Conn., July 20, 2006
The writer is an instructor at Bridgeport Hospital School of Nursing.