Replies

Then why did Bush's speech more than an year ago have any significance? If the President cannot cut off any funding, why was it a big deal when Bush authorized funds for stem-cell research using non-aborted tissues last March. I am still confused.

Because the media wanted to create a wedge with one issue people like you and Askel. I will trust Bush over the media every second of the day.

This makes no sense whatsoever. If Bush had no control over how the money is spent in stem-cell research, then why give a prime time speech and appoint Leon Kass into an advisory role in bio-ethics? Either the law forbids Bush to stop any funding in which case I do not understand the relevance of Bush's speech last year when he approved stem-cell-lite, or Bush changed his position. BTW, I am not a one issue person, but cannot stand liars. Bush promised during the campaign that he would not support embryonic stem-cell research. He changed his position twice for the worse. He is a bleeping liar.

I will trust Bush over the media every second of the day.

Not gonna quibble over your faith-based intellectual discerning.

As for your "One Issue" statement.

ALL HUMAN RIGHTS FLOW FROM THE RIGHT TO LIFE ... A SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH IN OUR DECLARATION, WITHOUT WHICH DOCUMENT, THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE INTERPRETED JUSTLY.

You get that first right wrong and the rest is a hopeless trainwreck.

The GOP has no intention of repealing Roe or revoking Legal Abortion. With an eye toward our population implosion crisis, they would like to reduce abortions, I'm sure.

Whether or not you are ready to realize exactly the extent to which key Republican leadership also support certain population control and eugenic objectives, the fact remains that they are supporting and protecting the foundation of Legal Abortion and the "right to choose [whether to kill the unborn or not]" on which artificial conception, artificial reproduction, manufacture and harvesting of embryos, use of fetal tissue and body parts all rest.