Our forums are currently in maintenance mode and the ability to post is disabled. We will be back up and running as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience!

General discussion


GWB's first Presidential Veto

By neilb@uk ·
George W Bush has vetoed a bill which would have lifted a ban on federal funding for new embryonic stem cell research.

He is quoted as saying "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it,".

The setting in which he announced the veto, surrounded by "snowflake babies", was quite sickeningly contrived.

The veto comes despite polls suggest that most Americans back the research, which scientists hope will lead to cures for serious illnesses such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

What is much more interesting for me is his words, suggesting that there is a "moral boundary" that exists with him - and fellow Christian Fundamentalists - on the side of "good" and a majority of American citizens on the other.

From my perspective, I needed no proof that he is a dangerous religious nutter, but, regardless of whether you believe that stem cell research is moral or not, do you feel that it is appropriate for your President to so define morality - and immorality?

How do YOU feel?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I'm absolutely

by maecuff In reply to GWB's first Presidential ...

for the continuation of stem cell research. As for morality, my definition changes depending on what suits me at the time, so I'm pretty sure GWB isn't going to be able to handle that for me. :)

Collapse -

That's why we (they) elected him

by DMambo In reply to GWB's first Presidential ...

If you look at the states that put him over the top, they are bastions of religious conservatism in the uniquely American style. I think that the mobilized conservative Christians who helped put him in office would have have expected him to do just what he did.

In a way, the religious right has a lot in common with Islamic fundamentalist governments. Their belief system is expected to color their entire lives, including their politics. It's a contrast to some Western European governments in countries that are largely Catholic, but have many liberal views on social issues and where religion can be "compartmentalized" so as not to intrude.

BTW, what's a "snowflake baby"? Haven't heard that one before.

edit: I just noticed that EL has resurfaced AGAIN!

Collapse -

"Snowflake baby"

by neilb@uk In reply to That's why we (they) elec ...

This is a child born to an infertile woman by implanting a donor embryo. The embryo has usually been frozen during in vitro fertilization procedures when, routinely, more embyos are created than are required. If the in vitro fertilization is successful or stopped for other reasons then these excess embryos are usually destroyed but can be used - "adopted" - if the donors are willing.

Does that make sense? Anyway, for GWB to surround himself with a roomful of these children when exercising his veto was completely barf-making!


As for EL. Some total loon has gone in and posted an answer to a year-old post. No accounting for stupidity. We just have to hope that EL is merely stirring in its sleep.

Collapse -

EL - never got involved in that one when it

by j.lupo In reply to "Snowflake baby"

was happening. I don't bother to try and find it now. So, I guess I am lucky on that one!

Collapse -

It was the thread that got me started in Miscellaneous

by neilb@uk In reply to EL - never got involved i ...

Several months of heated - sometimes very heated - debate covering Astronomy to Zoology. There's a recipe for a modern love potion, an online romance and some really amazing posts from Australian Hebrew scholar and Astronomer, Gret, with original translations and explanations of the Bible.

It's worth a look but DON'T POST TO IT. Just open it up and hit the [print] icon to get the whole thing laid out. It's on page 1 at the moment because some dimwit answered a year-old post!

It spawned a couple of four-hundred post child threads along the way.

Collapse -

Hmm, I didn't see it on Page 1

by j.lupo In reply to It was the thread that go ...

I will have to take a look. Thanks

Collapse -

edited out

by X-MarCap In reply to That's why we (they) elec ...

edited out

Collapse -

"God as a legal concept"

by neilb@uk In reply to edited out

What an awful thought that that could happen in your country or - less likely - mine. That's the way it is in Islamic Theocracies, you know. They just have a different "Book of Words" to you Christians, you know. Yours is no better than theirs and vice versa. They're just different. Interpretations are just different.

Most of the European countries managed to dump the Catholic Church's involvement in government and at that point were able to insist that the church burnt their own heretics and Jews.

"higher judgement". Well, you hope so else your whole belief system is based on very, very shaky premises. But you don't know the truth of God yet you wish to impose it on everyone.


Collapse -

edited out

by X-MarCap In reply to "God as a legal concept"

edited out

Collapse -

Scope please

by onbliss In reply to edited out

You said: "That means that right and wrong are immutable, and that if something is wrong yesterday it is wrong today."

Can you define the scope of your statement? Is it specific to certain facet of life like say - Killing, stealing - or do you think it can be generalized to all facets of life?

And would you agree that the corollary would be "that if something is right yesterday it is right today" ?

Related Discussions

Related Forums