State Sponsored Ignorance
Today the Chimpanzee known as George W Bush used his first veto of his illustrious 5.5 year reign as dictator of the US. It wasn't on gay marriage, legalized pot or a tax cut...no, it was to stifle scientific progress by curbing the stem-cell research initiative passed by both houses of congress. Many of the pro-life members of the Senate voted for the bill (63-37) , including Dr. Bill Frist, which would have loosened restrictions on stem-cell research. The fact that this was the very first veto after 5.5 years of disaster-after-disaster is very troubling because it was a bill that was supported by both Democrats and Republicans and Bush's idol's widow Nancy Reagan. Even Utah senator Orrin Hatch (a surprisingly astute man, considering how conservative he is I am always surprised how often he is right on debates) was an avid supporter of the bill. The opponents were those like Rick Santorum (sanitarium?) who are so blind in their support of the right wing conservativism that the would never even consider a yes vote on anything related to a fetus.
If life begins at conception, where is it not life? A sperm is just as much of a living, breathing creature as a fetus is. Neither have self-awareness or complex thought, they are just a stage in the development of a life. If it is so bad to take a life, shouldn't every pro-life (and anti stem cell) person be a vegan? After all, every human takes hundreds (if not thousands) of lives each year to simply survive, even vegetarians (plants are alive too, some like Seymour from Little Shop of Horrors are smarter than George Bush). Why not say that life begins at the contemplation of consumation and just make it illegal to get horny without making a baby? Based on the number of pregnancies that end in miscarriages or other disasters, you cannot count on a fetus becoming a viable human being until it is exposed to the light of day. Abortion is not something that is "good", but it is a necessary evil in many cases. There have been studies that clearly show that abortion reduces crime thanks to the fact that fewer children are born into harsh situations where they are unwanted or unable to be supported by anyone. If it weren't for abortion (well, the emergency contraceptive "morning after pill") I might have had a baby or two to support far before I was ready. Woudn't we rather have this world filled only with those who can be supported enough to become productive and valuable members of society?
"Science offfers temptations to manipulate human life"...no shit! That's the point of science. Without science, Bush would probably be dead by now considering the fact that we've more than doubled the life expentancy of a human thanks to scientific research. We wouldn't have penicillin without the intuitiveness of scientists to use mold to combat disease. It's not as if the stem-cell research would be forced upon pregnant women, only those who give up their fetus for research would be affected and most of the stem-cells would be created in labs anyways. What is the possible life of one worth when weighed against the cure for diseases like Alzheimer's, Cancer and Parkinson's that can be discovered if stem-cell research is legalized and supported by the government? If the potential life of a fetus is used to keep another alive, isn't that protecting the sancity of life? Isn't it wrong to deny helping a sick person simply because you have a religious belief against progress? The Dark Ages were dark because of the religious fervor that not only stifled progress, it persecuted those who thought progressively.
So what is the future of stem cell research? As long as we have a born-again retard in the white house, it's pretty bleak. Maybe the Gates Foundation will just buy an island to create their own nation, "The Gates Foundation Nation", in order to research things without a backwards government getting in the way. I'm curious about where Bush would stand on the deactivating of an artificial life form. What would he say about putting an obsolete robot to scrap? It is more self-aware than a fetus, has contributed more to the world and can technically live forever with the proper support. For all we know, that fetus being used for stem-cell research might have been the next Timothy McVeigh or Charles Manson.
So what Bush is saying with his veto is that he cares more for the rights of the unborn than he does for the living. While he is working to deny gays the right to marry and adopt, immigrants the right to live in peace and our rights to privacy, he is working hard to establish a theocracy based on the principals of pro-life. I just can't understand how this could be the first veto in 5.5 years when there have been so many questionable decisions by congress since Bush took office. Instead of a progressive society fueled by progress, we are becoming a reactionary society ruled by spiritual beliefs. When 75% of the nation supports something, 63% of the Senate and basically every doctor does too, it shouldn't be vetoed by Bush. So when Bush is suffering from Alzheimers in 15-20 years, I'm just going to laugh at his plight because he brought it on himself. Because if we funded the research on stem-cells, we'd see our nation get much closer to curing many of the diseases that devastate our golden years. Or we can just deny evolution, make all medical research illegal and display the 10 commandments on all public buildings.
If life begins at conception, where is it not life? A sperm is just as much of a living, breathing creature as a fetus is. Neither have self-awareness or complex thought, they are just a stage in the development of a life. If it is so bad to take a life, shouldn't every pro-life (and anti stem cell) person be a vegan? After all, every human takes hundreds (if not thousands) of lives each year to simply survive, even vegetarians (plants are alive too, some like Seymour from Little Shop of Horrors are smarter than George Bush). Why not say that life begins at the contemplation of consumation and just make it illegal to get horny without making a baby? Based on the number of pregnancies that end in miscarriages or other disasters, you cannot count on a fetus becoming a viable human being until it is exposed to the light of day. Abortion is not something that is "good", but it is a necessary evil in many cases. There have been studies that clearly show that abortion reduces crime thanks to the fact that fewer children are born into harsh situations where they are unwanted or unable to be supported by anyone. If it weren't for abortion (well, the emergency contraceptive "morning after pill") I might have had a baby or two to support far before I was ready. Woudn't we rather have this world filled only with those who can be supported enough to become productive and valuable members of society?
"Science offfers temptations to manipulate human life"...no shit! That's the point of science. Without science, Bush would probably be dead by now considering the fact that we've more than doubled the life expentancy of a human thanks to scientific research. We wouldn't have penicillin without the intuitiveness of scientists to use mold to combat disease. It's not as if the stem-cell research would be forced upon pregnant women, only those who give up their fetus for research would be affected and most of the stem-cells would be created in labs anyways. What is the possible life of one worth when weighed against the cure for diseases like Alzheimer's, Cancer and Parkinson's that can be discovered if stem-cell research is legalized and supported by the government? If the potential life of a fetus is used to keep another alive, isn't that protecting the sancity of life? Isn't it wrong to deny helping a sick person simply because you have a religious belief against progress? The Dark Ages were dark because of the religious fervor that not only stifled progress, it persecuted those who thought progressively.
So what is the future of stem cell research? As long as we have a born-again retard in the white house, it's pretty bleak. Maybe the Gates Foundation will just buy an island to create their own nation, "The Gates Foundation Nation", in order to research things without a backwards government getting in the way. I'm curious about where Bush would stand on the deactivating of an artificial life form. What would he say about putting an obsolete robot to scrap? It is more self-aware than a fetus, has contributed more to the world and can technically live forever with the proper support. For all we know, that fetus being used for stem-cell research might have been the next Timothy McVeigh or Charles Manson.
So what Bush is saying with his veto is that he cares more for the rights of the unborn than he does for the living. While he is working to deny gays the right to marry and adopt, immigrants the right to live in peace and our rights to privacy, he is working hard to establish a theocracy based on the principals of pro-life. I just can't understand how this could be the first veto in 5.5 years when there have been so many questionable decisions by congress since Bush took office. Instead of a progressive society fueled by progress, we are becoming a reactionary society ruled by spiritual beliefs. When 75% of the nation supports something, 63% of the Senate and basically every doctor does too, it shouldn't be vetoed by Bush. So when Bush is suffering from Alzheimers in 15-20 years, I'm just going to laugh at his plight because he brought it on himself. Because if we funded the research on stem-cells, we'd see our nation get much closer to curing many of the diseases that devastate our golden years. Or we can just deny evolution, make all medical research illegal and display the 10 commandments on all public buildings.
posted by Dan Pasternack at 4:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home