Home > Bush, Religion, Science > Bush vetoes baby killing bill

Bush vetoes baby killing bill

Apparently that’s what he thinks he did:

Bush defended the veto in the White House’s East Room surrounded by two dozen families — including one from Alexandria, another from Ellicott City — whose children were adopted as frozen embryos.

“These boys and girls are not spare parts,” Bush said, ignoring chatter from some of the younger children in the room. “They remind us of what is lost when embryos are lost in the name of research.”

“Yet we must also remember that embryonic stem cells come from human embryos that are destroyed for their cells. Each of these human embryos is a unique human life with inherent dignity and matchless value.”

And yet, if this is true, Bush’s heaven is mostly filled with people who were never larger than a spec of dust. You’d think his god would have made things a bit more efficient. Why create so many souls you know are going to be killed before even getting started?

Oh, I guess God just works in mysterious ways.

It’s absurd, but we knew that. Bush has used his first veto to impose his most stunningly illogical belief on the scientific community and all the people with diseases stem cell research could cure.

Oh, and Burns voted against the bill. He claims adult stem cells are more promising. And yet, no one outside of the religious right actually believes that.

Categories: Bush, Religion, Science
  1. Sam Kniffen
    July 20, 2006 at 7:58 am

    Killing is killing is killing. We have to stop all the killing. Why isn’t anyone doing something about the frozen embryos being incinerated? Why do we accept that as necessary?

    Why do you mention heaven? I don’t believe in a god or a heaven, but if there is a heaven why can’t it be filled with “people who were never larger than a spec of dust”? Who are we to presume?

    Would that frozen embryo become a human being if it is implanted? Yes, and therefore we must not kill it. It seems simple to me. What – if it it doesn’t look like a human then it isn’t human? It doesn’t matter if it’s two cells or two trillion cells, it is a human and it will walk and talk and think (and probably kill) if it is permitted to grow.

    President Bush is killing our valiant young men and women, most of them babies themselves, but I believe he has finally done a good thing, for once, with his veto.

  2. July 20, 2006 at 6:00 pm

    Why do you mention heaven? I don’t believe in a god or a heaven, but if there is a heaven why can’t it be filled with “people who were never larger than a spec of dust”? Who are we to presume?

    I mentioned heaven because I was taking issue with Bush’s comments. I gave the reasons such a situation is absurd after that sentence about heaven.

    Would that frozen embryo become a human being if it is implanted? Yes, and therefore we must not kill it. It seems simple to me. What – if it it doesn’t look like a human then it isn’t human? It doesn’t matter if it’s two cells or two trillion cells, it is a human and it will walk and talk and think (and probably kill) if it is permitted to grow.

    What I was alluding to with the heaven is filled with people who were never larger than a spec of dust comment is the fact that about half of all embryos never make it past that point. Factor in miscarriages in later stages of pregnancy and you end up with the situation that “permitting an embryo to grow” is probably not going to lead to a human being. So your potentiality argument is wrong.

    Even if it was correct, you still haven’t justified your position. We don’t value people just because they have human genetic code. My skin cells have human genetic code and no one would consider them human. We value people based on individual mental capacities, personalities, and moral agency. You can’t even begin to attribute those qualities to the unborn until at least the beginning of the third trimester unless you believe in a soul, which means you believe the essence of someone’s being is present, just not manifested. If you do believe in a soul (which seems unlikely given that you don’t believe in god or heaven), you have to argue for that first.

  3. Colby N.
    July 21, 2006 at 8:15 am

    My take on all of this is summarized in the following scenario:

    Your 13 year old son gets hit by a car while on his bike. He is in horrible condition, but he is stable; he is on a breathing machine. The doctors say that it is very probable that he will survive the coma he is in, but they can’t be sure. In every state in the country, you (as the parent) would have the right to end the process keeping you child alive, despite the potentiality for a fruitful life he still has left, it is a parent’s decision at that point. Parents do, and should, have the right to make decisions for their children until they are capable of doing so themselves.

    I have often used that argument against pro-lifers, and their response is that life support is artificial, while abortion is not. Granted, I can see that point. However, in response to Sam Kniffen here, it works well. Sam asks why it is okay to ‘kill’ a frozen embryo. There is no difference between the artificial process keeping the embryo in its current status and the artificial process keeping the teenage boy alive in my scenario. When artificial means are being used to preserve life, the parent should have the decision whether or not to terminate that process. Thus those frozen embryos are not even in the same argumentative league as a developing fetus in a womb.

  4. July 21, 2006 at 9:31 am

    Gentlemen, thank you for your thoughtful replies to my posting. I am glad I happened upon this terrific blog.

    I am not trying to argue. I felt a need to state my feelings. I simply don\\\’t agree with killing in any form. Humans shouldn\’t kill humans, or \”potential\” humans.

    Half of all embryos don\’t survive past speck size and of those that do, many will be miscarried, yes, but that is the result of fate. To me, it \”feels\” like deliberately stopping an embryo from growing is killing a human. I believe that the unborn are people.

    I agree with Colby in that there is no difference between keeping the frozen embryo in an artificial state and keeping the unfortunate boy on life support. My stand is that there should be no frozen embryos in the first place. Freezing embryos simply to create a child for a childless couple is wrong and the practice should be stopped. If it were stopped today there would be thousands of frozen embryos yet to be \”disposed of\” and I think I feel okay with the thought of using those remaining embryos for stem cell research.

    We should conduct stem cell research on umbilical cord blood. Simple.

    I heard an excellent opinion about this on NPR this morning from Congressman Dan Lundgren. You can read it here: Link

    Now I\’m off to learn more about WordPress. Thank you, Jeff, for mentioning it.

  5. July 21, 2006 at 11:12 pm

    I simply don’t agree with killing in any form. Humans shouldn’t kill humans, or “potential” humans.

    Which is sort of an absurd position. Self defense? WWII? Should we not kill animals, too? Plants? Bacteria?

    Half of all embryos don’t survive past speck size and of those that do, many will be miscarried, yes, but that is the result of fate. To me, it “feels” like deliberately stopping an embryo from growing is killing a human. I believe that the unborn are people.

    This doesn’t make sense at all. What does it matter if it’s “fate” or not? The truth is that your claim that permitting an embryo to grow will result in a human being is wrong. Another simple reason that believing an embryo is not a human being is the existence of identical twins. There are two possible reason (as I see it) for believing an embyro is a human being. The first is that it has a human genetic code. This is where identical twins come into play. They have identical DNA and are distinct human beings. That suggests there’s something more to being a person than a certain genetic code. The second reason is belief in a soul. In that case, you’re imposing your spiritual beliefs on others who don’t share them.

    We should conduct stem cell research on umbilical cord blood. Simple.

    We should and we do. That has nothing to do with whether or not we should conduct research on embryonic stem cells. You will find almost no scientist claiming that ignoring embryonic stem cells is scientifically justifiable. Perhaps I’m reading too much into your statement, but please don’t try and justify your ethical concerns with statements that it won’t hurt the research.

    I know you said you aren’t here to argue, but I’m genuinely curious, especially if you don’t believe in soul, about your response to my arguments.

  6. Sam K.
    July 22, 2006 at 8:09 am

    Jeff, I was simply commenting how I felt about your post about President Bush’s veto. I enjoy considering other people’s opinions, I enjoyed reading your blog entry, and I simply felt like posting a comment. I don’t want to use my energy trying to argue or convince people to adopt my point of view. It wouldn’t do any good – people will always kill people.

    Yes, of course, and unfortunately, we must kill in order to defend our country, our home, and our family. I see that my statement was too vague. Animals, plants, and bacteria must die also if we are to survive. Something must die in order for us to live. I am against unnecessary killing of humans, from the moment of conception.

    I am not trying to impose my spiritual beliefs on anyone nor am I trying to justify my ethical concerns. In actuality, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research would mean that others are trying to impose their beliefs upon ME. My tax money goes to the government and I personally do not wish my money to be spent on what I consider to be the murder of unborn, potential humans. Stem cell research on frozen embryos has not been outlawed (yet) – it will continue without federal funding. If you want your money to be spent on embryonic stem cell research, fine.

    Ultimately, my stand on embronic stem cell research (and abortion) does not involve the destruction of anything. Yours does. Wonderful. We have different views. Beautiful. It’s nice to be alive.

  7. July 22, 2006 at 12:41 pm

    I don’t want to use my energy trying to argue or convince people to adopt my point of view. It wouldn’t do any good – people will always kill people.

    You can look at it that way, but I wouldn’t. I started arguing with you because I have strong beliefs that I’m pretty confident in. Your beliefs are different, in what looks like a fairly novel way. So I wanted to see what your response was to the problems I see in views like yours. So, as much as I would like to convince you that I’m right, I’m also trying to further my own understanding and to see if there are places where my beliefs are illogical. Your statement suggests you see no such room for error in your beliefs, which I find disappointing.

    Something must die in order for us to live. I am against unnecessary killing of humans, from the moment of conception.

    Seems like embryos “dying” for other humans to live would fit the bill.

    I am not trying to impose my spiritual beliefs on anyone nor am I trying to justify my ethical concerns. In actuality, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research would mean that others are trying to impose their beliefs upon ME. My tax money goes to the government and I personally do not wish my money to be spent on what I consider to be the murder of unborn, potential humans. Stem cell research on frozen embryos has not been outlawed (yet) – it will continue without federal funding. If you want your money to be spent on embryonic stem cell research, fine.

    Cursory civics lesson: we live in a republic. We indirectly vote on these issues and put the majority opinion into law. Someone is always going to have to support a view they disagree with.

    Now, I should have been clearer. I have no problem with people making arguments that I don’t agree with and having my taxes support policies based on such arguments, if they become policy through the channels put in place by our constitution. Well, no problem other than not liking the policy. It’s the way our country works.

    What I have a real problem with is when people support a policy based soley on their inarguable spiritual beliefs. I find it imposing for people to force me to support a policy that is not justified from our common ground of evidence and logic. Supporting something “just because I feel like it” looks like a lack of respect towards the other citizens of this country.

    Ultimately, my stand on embronic stem cell research (and abortion) does not involve the destruction of anything. Yours does. Wonderful. We have different views. Beautiful. It’s nice to be alive.

    I just find this strange.

  8. Sam
    July 22, 2006 at 5:19 pm

    Jeff, I am not supporting a policy based on my inarguable spiritual beliefs. I am supporting it because my heart tells me that it is wrong to destroy human embryos. How does one decide what is right or wrong?

    What is this evidence and logic that you speak of? Are you saying that you can prove that a human embryo will not develop into a human being? I’m not talking about odds here, Jeff. If only one in a billion will develop into a human being then that is enough for me to say no thank you to your offer to find a cure for my Parkinson’s Disease or my severed spinal cord or my Alzheimer’s Disease if it means aborting the life of that human embryo. How can you not see the logic in that? That embryo has an inarguable right to fulfill its destiny.

    I respect all decent citizens of this country and the world and it is not fair to imply that I don’t, Jeff.

  9. July 22, 2006 at 8:44 pm

    Jeff, I am not supporting a policy based on my inarguable spiritual beliefs. I am supporting it because my heart tells me that it is wrong to destroy human embryos. How does one decide what is right or wrong?

    I was explaining why I thought the spiritual beliefs option that I gave you was an unjustifiable imposition. If it doesn\’t apply to you, fine. However, I was arguing against inarguable beliefs that we don\’t all share and what you just said qualifies.

    How does one decide what\’s right or wrong? First off, you\’ve been putting forth arguments to support your belief. I think you need to make up your mind. Is this something you just \”feel\” or do you have reasons? Second, how about reason? Isn\’t that a good way to determine what\’s right or wrong? What exactly do you think moral philosophers do?

    What is this evidence and logic that you speak of? Are you saying that you can prove that a human embryo will not develop into a human being?

    I\’m saying I gave you reasons why your question is irrelevant.

    I’m not talking about odds here, Jeff. If only one in a billion will develop into a human being then that is enough for me to say no thank you to your offer to find a cure for my Parkinson’s Disease or my severed spinal cord or my Alzheimer’s Disease if it means aborting the life of that human embryo. How can you not see the logic in that? That embryo has an inarguable right to fulfill its destiny.

    What\’s the \”destiny\” of an embryo created for research? How you\’re thinking of destiny seems like some sort of mystical concept.

    One in a billion odds? How did you come up with that? If you say you don\’t care about odds, that it\’s enough that there\’s a chance, you\’re taking an absurd position. There\’s a chance that some animal alive today will be an ancestor to a new species with intellectual capacities such that we would want to give them rights. Killing it would be wrong, by your logic. It wouldn\’t be allowed to fulfill its destiny of passing its genes and leading to the new species. And that\’s an entire species. And it could be any living organism. Somehow I doubt you\’re taking the steps consistent with avoiding wiping out an entire species.

    Also, I assume you\’re against birth control, too. After all, you\’re stopping some sperm cell from fulfilling its \”destiny\” of creating a human being.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: