Posted on 07/19/2006 11:14:14 AM PDT by Lunatic Fringe
Let Buffet spend his billions on this if he wants.
This is exactly why Thomas Jefferson led the republicans in advocating free practice of one's religion - something the British Anglican Church didn't exactly cotton to.
The pendulum will swing back away from this temporary trip into Fundamentalism. And the country will be better off for it.
A thinly disguided slur against Fundementalism. Tell me, British Expat, what is the opinion of embryonic stem cell research in Catholicism? Judaism?
Or is it just those stone-age, God-fearing Fundies you've a problem with?
He said that millions of embryos would be needed to do any significant research (and any cures are decades away), so that women would be exploited to harvest enough embryos to do the 'research' needed.
Interesting take on it, IMO.
"That's the best thing about the United States, your religious views don't carry the weight of law, and nobody will be forced to leave because of them. The pendulum will swing back away from this temporary trip into Fundamentalism. And the country will be better off for it."
I doubt it. Any time the social agenda of secular fundamentalists is stopped in the legislature, that's a good thing.
Myself, as a non religious person: I'll take the fundamentalism that prohibits killing the innocent members of our society, over the fundamentalism that wants to kill the weak and unborn for the sake of commerce and individual "freedom of choice."
That's supposed to be funny, right. Unfortunately (for us), Mr. Bush and company have done the same crap! Can you say 'drug benefit" which will further "bankrupt our Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security systems? How about spending all that money on the "victims" of every damn inconvenience that befalls prospective voters (WTC, Katrina, and all the rest of the re-distributive crap they are pandering with to buy votes)
Granted.
But, as I stated, people expressing discontent that this is the only spending he has VETO'd I can understand.
People professing conservatism that had decried government spending, then turn around in outrage that he didn't sign another spending bill, well, that I won't respect.
There is no consistency to their actions in that case. Leading me to conclude they endorse spending, if it's on their causes.
LOL!
I didn't hear that and I'm glad because the whole issue grosses me out. And it seems to have escaped the leftists attention that none of this means that private research firms can't do their own darned research with their own darned money.
I'm just delighted it's not being done with my money.
Ronald Reagan and Mr. Falwell were friends. They often conversed on religious matters.
"Why didn't we get private companies to take us into space?"
Same reason private companies are not building cars using hydrogen for propulsion.
Is anyone who is thanking the Lord for this veto (whether or not one believes other previous bills should have been vetoed), simply a 'Bushbot' to you?
Are you really that shallow? Really?
I knew it wouldn't take long.
Good! There can be no excuse for Mengele-like human experimentation.
The MSM is already going ballistic.
Bush vetoed a spending bill. That is good.
Shoulda started 5.5 years ago.
"Last I checked, he didn't ban embryonic research. So all of their sputtering and outrage stems down to, what? Outrage he didn't spend money? Interesting position for a 'conservative' to take."
Indeed.
The people who advocate this type of spending, I believe, do so for regional/cultural reasons, and not simply liberal vs. conservative.
Let's give this 10-20 years to ferment, and see if we've returned to the era of eugenics, thanks to the post-Christian establishment.
OK.
Feel free to toss around the "Bushbot" label on threads where you are at odds with what he is doing.
I agree that he should have vetoed more, and a long time ago.
For better or worse, humans have always been de facto commodities. We mouth platitudes about the infinite value of human life, but not a single human behaves as though a human life has more than some finite value in practice.
Elevating humans to very high value benefits us all in some ways, but one must distinguish between that construct and reality as it is a convenient fiction. None of this is without consequences, and the balance has always been toward maximizing the average human value and benefit.
In the end, it is all governed by the dismal science of economics. And no amount of willful ignorance allows one to avoid the economic consequences, good or bad, of the value we put on humans. Stating that "human beings cannot become a legal commodity" is akin to saying "the sun cannot rise in the east". Assertions do not alter the basic properties of the universe, whether we like the consequences of those properties or not.
You're absolutely right, Seeker. He never EVER banned embryonic research. He also never banned funding for all embryonic research. What he did ban was funding for NEW embryonic research (i.e. the destruction of new embryos, 'new lines').
Of course, some distortion of the truth (not by you, BTW) makes for a much better soundbite (according to the MSM's perspective).
I agree, but what do you think of the argument that if we should not be allowed to destroy embryos to research for cures, why should couple be able to make them through in-vitro when they cannot conceive?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.