Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Veto 8

Journal by pudge

It is not exceptional that this was Bush's first veto. He worked with Congress to avoid vetoes, and except for two years in the Senate, the Congress has had solely Republican leaders. Bush would say "I won't sign that unless you do this," and Congress did that, so, no veto.

It's a given that when he finally does veto something, it's on a values issue where there's no room for Bush to compromise. If there were room, there would've been a compromise, and no veto.

Don't get me wrong, I do wish Bush would have vetoed a lot more bills, especially spending bills, and the campaign finance reform bill, and so on. But I don't find it interesting or exceptional that he didn't do so before now.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Veto More

Veto

Comments Filter:
  • Do you carry an organ donor card? If your kid was going to die, would you donate his organs to help other kid(s)? Embrionic stem cells aren't the whole embryo. For me, the issue is exactly the same as organ donation.
    • Embrionic [sic] stem cells aren't the whole embryo. For me, the issue is exactly the same as organ donation.

      For you, destroying a human life is exactly the same as not destroying a human life?

      That's really bizarre.
      • For you, destroying a human life is exactly the same as not destroying a human life?

        No, I didn't say that, and you know it.

        How do you think using a stem cell from a frozen embryo which is going to die is different from using organs from a child who is going to die?

        • No, I didn't say that, and you know it.

          You said this is the exactly the same as an organ donation, even though in one, you are destroying a human life, and in the other, you are not.

          How do you think using a stem cell from a frozen embryo which is going to die is different from using organs from a child who is going to die?

          Because one is destroying a life, and the other is not.
          • How does removing stem cells from an embryo which is going to die anyway destroy a life?
            • How does removing stem cells from an embryo which is going to die anyway destroy a life?

              Because the process of doing so actually destroys the embryo, which is a life. Seriously, what part are you not getting?
              • Removing vital organs from a brain-dead car accident victim destroys a life, too. What is the moral difference?
                • Removing vital organs from a brain-dead car accident victim destroys a life, too. What is the moral difference?

                  First, that almost never happens, and many (most?) bioethicists believe it never should happen. Usually, you wait until there is actual death. Second, that's entirely tangential to your question of whether embryonic stem cell research destroys lives: it clearly does.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Anyone attempting to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin." -- John Von Neumann

Close