[AgentEcho]

My conscience is that I vote for Mr. Bush, which I will with no reservations. The tough decision is, for me, is his stance on stem cell research.

My reasoning is, and I am not well versed on it, without advocating stem cell research these children are dieing for no reason. To me, until partial birth and early term abortions are abolished (and to me with exceptions, rape pretty much period) the these lives are for naught.

Flame me if you will, but God gave us the knowledge to use a sorrowful situation to help mankind.
Æ - 92% Conservative, 95% Catholic, 100% Free Realistic Thinker

Flame on, I can take it (I hope)

[arasina]

Abortion clinics are an industry --- little killing factories, if you will. The way I understand it is that the stem cell research that is so controversial is that which uses stem cells from aborted fetuses or even intentionally created zygotes from which stem cells are HARVESTED, making the unborn humans just part of the, um..."production" line. (I just noticed the irony in my analogy.)

Way too Soylent Green for me, and definitely unethical when adult stem cells can evidently be used to perform the same experiments.

[Petronski]

Your argument is fine enough as it stands, but it will eventually create a market for such tissue, and thus a market for 'unpersons.'

(At this point, a cringe in disgust and fear would be appropriate.)

[capitan_refugio]

The stem cell research issue should not prevent your vote for Bush. Bush's position forbids the expenditure of Federal money on new embryonic stem cell lines. He does not preclude private research, state-funded research (there is a measure on the California ballot this year regarding state funded research), or non-embryonic stem cell research.

Bush's position represents a principled stance. If congress could muster a 2/3rds majority in each House, they could override any Bush veto. The fact of the matter is that embryonic stem cell research is an ethical issue as much as a scientific issue.