George Bush, Wrong Yet Again

Is it wrong to take a life to save one life? How about two lives? Perhaps three? When does one life become more valuable than others? Apparently, to those on the right, one life is always more important if it is not yet born than the lives of the living.

What on earth am I blathering on about? Perhaps it is the idiotic veto by the President on foetal stem cell research. This is an area that is highly promising. Yes, the adult stem cells have, so far, produced all the advances. This legislation would do not a single thing to diminish adult stem cell research.

So why the focus on foetal stem cells as a research point? It is because the stem cells from a foetus are safer to use. They have the best chance of being able to be restrained from growing tumors, as well as the best chance to avoid genetic abnormalities very common to adult stem cells, which renders them dangerous to use.

So, what, if any, problem is set to occur if this veto does not get overruled? Well, it certainly sets back medical research until 20 January 2009. People with Alzheimers, Diabetes, cardiomyopathy, MS, MD, Lou Gherigs, and many other severe, deadly diseases are going to die because of this.

So I ask you, Mr. President...how is it that the lives of a few foetuses, which are going to be destroyed anyways, worth more than the lives of my mother and my father, both of whom are productive members of society? How, sir, are the lives of two adults who do so much good worth less than one unborn child, already set to be destroyed?

I don't expect an answer, because frankly, there is no rational answer. My mother did not ask for her disease, and stem cell research promises potentially great rewards in her treatment. Same with my father. It's time to stop this lunacy, Mr. President. It is time to start looking at morality as not always absolute, but sometimes squishy and relative.