Existing lines. Get your facts straight.
"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made." - George W. Bush
Embryos were necessarily destroyed to get the stem cells.
Pretty ghoulish, huh? Like I said, the President is hardly the lodestone.
Both men oppose the use of federal funds to destroy nascent human life.
True, as far as it goes. But the fact remains, Romney still supports the destruction of additional human embryos, while President Bush does not.
Neither man has the power to forbid anybody to do just that where federal funds are not involved. That is, unfortunately the state of the law in America. In fact neither man can stop an abortionist from killing a full term baby minutes before birth. That too is the unfortunate state of the law in America. We must have a pro life POTUS, that I am committed to, because we must make it unlawful to murder unborn babies.
Agreed. Squishes need not apply.
We can't get to protecting embryos until we can protect 8 month old babies. That is also the fact of the matter.
It's not an either/or question.
My facts are straight partner. You can teach me nothing about pro life issues and I wouldn't deign to think I could teach you something either. If I want condescension I prefer to get it from Condescension Central. Comprende? President Bush signed the legislation that allowed federal funds to be spent on those stem cell lines. The prerequisite for those lines was killing embryo's. Ergo, he subsidised the killing of embryo's. That's the fact Jack and it still doesn't change the fact that Bush has been the best pro life POTUS we have had. I won't bother to bore you with the statistics concerning abortion rates and legislation passed, I assume you know those like you know everything else.
It's not an either/or question.
Correct it's a question of politics, the art of the possible. It is currently possible to role back Roe to the first trimester. The science has made our argument easier, it is a relatively simple proposition to convince Americans that third trimester babies are human beings fully formed and deserving of constitutional protection. It is not even that hard to do the same with second trimester babies. However, convincing Americans, who fear death and the ravages of age, that embryo's sitting idly in refrigerators should be given the same protection while they are seeking the fountain of youth is a much more difficult endeavor politically.
So, what is the moral thing to do here friend? Do we save as many as we can where and when we can or let them fall under the knife until we can cobble together a majority for all or nothing?
My take on Romney is that he would be a pro life POTUS who would appoint Justices who recognize that Roe is garbage. My take on Rudy is the opposite. He climbed to the Mayoralty of New York on the backs of unborn babies sacrificed on the altar of NARAL. Big difference here. I would hope you would recognize it.
As for President Reagans book it sit's on my desk where it has been for quite some time now. Like I said he became a pro life warrior and we love him for that. Legislatively and statistically this POTUS has President Reagan beaten. That's the way I see it. How you see it is up to you.