Stewart R. Perry pointing out Bush’s inconsistencies

Wasn’t the justification for Bush’s wars basically, “We much destroy life in order to save it?” How is that different from stem cell research? Even as an apples to apples comparison, it looks hypocritical, but the average rational human would probably put more weight on the life of a living innocent human than embryonic cells (which happen to be killed every day by pro-life people using fertility clinics).

A little consistency would be nice.

Science, war and syntax

No one can be confused about President Bush’s stand on government-sponsored stem-cell research, which he emphatically opposes. ‘I made it very clear to the Congress,’ he recently said, ‘that the use of federal money, taxpayers’ money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life is — I’m against that.’

And how does the president feel about using taxpayers’ money to promote war — an enterprise that undeniably destroys life? Didn’t he see the irony of his comment?

Stewart R. Perry, Wayzata”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.