A blog on objective thought in today's irrational, subjective world tackling some of the hardest questions of existence using reason and logic.
A Veto Kills thousands
Published on May 27, 2005 By John Galt In US Domestic
In a move that stuns me and makes me actually believe just a little in politicians the government of the United States actually overruled Bushes idiotic stem cell research law.

Amazing. Fantastic. Wonderful.

In other news: Bush vows to veto bill.

*sigh* So much for that little belief in politicians to actually do something useful.

W. has the same bogus, life hating view that comes from all religions, but most specifically Christianity. He is putting what might be ahead of what IS. To put this simply:

Michael J. Fox is dying of Parkinson’s Disease. If this bill does not pass he almost certainly will die. And millions of people world wide that are closer to death than Fox WILL die. That’s called money in the bank. Absolute, certain death. (unless of course more enlightened nations save the day with research that the United States should be doing, but of course only idiots wait for someone else to take care of their problems for them… oh ya, that’s called socialism)

But in some mind numbing warped way, Bush sees his position as defending life. He’s defending 100 cells created in a test tube for the sole purpose of being used in experiments in the same way that we culture bacteria or viruses for study. If the research wasn’t being done, the egg would never be fertilized. And it certainly will never be implanted in a woman to be gestated no matter what. We’re not talking about taking aborted foetuses (although it’s the same difference), we’re talking about taking a single cell from a woman that wilfully gives it up, bombarding it in a Petri dish with millions of cells from a man that willingly gave them up (and probably had a good time in the processes) and then letting it grow for a few days and then experimenting on them. This is not a human. And even if there was any possibility that it would become a human, that’s a POSSIBILITY. It’s possible that those cells might become a human being and live. But Alex P. Keaton is ABSOLUTELY going to die if this research doesn’t happen.

For all of you Christians out there that think you’re defending life with this inane policy of favouring what might be over what is, think carefully the next time you say goodbye to someone with MS, or Parkinson’s or Alzimers or the next time you see someone in a wheel chair or the next time you watch Superman and realize that your policies condemned Christopher Reeves to years in bed unable to move and then eventually his death.

You and people like you killed him, and are committing murder against Michael J. Fox and those that suffer similar ailments. No might be, or possibly preventing a life from happening that would never have happened anyhow, you’re killing real live people. You’re doing it wilfully, cognitively, and with complete forethought and knowledge of the consequences of your actions. That’s 1st degree murder. And the Bible says you should be put to death for it.

Now there’s a contradiction for you.

Embrace life. Real, living human beings that can look you in the eye when their bodies aren’t shaking themselves to pieces, and are pleading with you to just allow scientists to do their jobs and pursue medicines that will allow them to continue to live. Anything else is not only immoral, it’s evil.

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jun 19, 2005
If you embrace life, you must reject embryonic stem cell research as it destroys life.

Who decides if your life is more impornat than John Doe's? You? Someone died and made you GOD?

I addressed this in my article. Read it again. Possibity, versus real live people.
on Jun 19, 2005
You state boldly that opposition to human embryo research "condemned Christopher Reeves to years in bed unable to move and then eventually his death." Even you would have to admit that had there been NO interefence that there was no way we could have utilized this research in time to save Christopher Reeve.

Actually no I wouldn't because they've already injected spinal cords with stem cells and had varying degrees of increased motor control as a result.

And as for MJ Fox? Well he's looking remarkably better than he was 6 months ago. Perhaps it has something to do with that treatment his wife mentioned out of country that he had... Stem cells work. It's proven already, there are real benefits now. (Altzihmer's patients see almost immeidate improvement in cognitive skills for example just with a single injection)

Yes, no research should get funding Dr. Guy and everyone else. But as I said, if one is going to get it, they all must. You don't get to pick and choose and certainly not based on your personal religious beliefs. You're the head of government. You do get to choose where your own money goes. You do not get to choose which group of people get the benefit of the government and who don't unless it's solely on merit. Just like gay marriage, there is no merit involved in W's veto.

In an objectivist world you would get to choose where each and every dime of your money goes. The only money you'd ever have to spend is for the military/police because they protect you and enable you to live free and accomplish your own goals in life. (and even then I'd argue that you could choose not to have the protection of the police if you wanted) But unfortunately, we don't live in that world. So in reality we deal with what is. What is, is that research gets federal funding just like the oil and coal companies get subsideies to ensure that they're power stations are cheaper than solar and wind power. And if research is going to get funding, then you can't say "stem cell research cannot be funded because my religious beliefs say it's wrong". (besides which there is nothing in Christianity that says anything of the sort, it's purely a made up fiction of Bush.)
on Jun 19, 2005

#16 by John Galt
Sunday, June 19, 2005


Keep in mind however that Bush is against ANY research into stem-cells and has promised to veto ANY bill on the subject.


This statement is flat wrong! Bush has given MILLION's in research money for stem cell research. Do a little more homework sonny. He is opposed to giving federal grants that open "new" lines of stem cells.
on Jun 19, 2005

Yes, no research should get funding Dr. Guy and everyone else. But as I said, if one is going to get it, they all must. You don't get to pick and choose and certainly not based on your personal religious beliefs. You're the head of government. You do get to choose where your own money goes. You do not get to choose which group of people get the benefit of the government and who don't unless it's solely on merit. Just like gay marriage, there is no merit involved in W's veto.


And your "just" as wrong here! As the head of state he damn well does get to pick "where" our tax dollars go and "who" gets them.
on Jun 19, 2005
But as I said, if one is going to get it, they all must. You don't get to pick and choose and certainly not based on your personal religious beliefs. You're the head of government. You do get to choose where your own money goes.

That is in fact part of his job description, so you're flat wrong on that one.

There is nothing stopping anyone from doing research, just from getting any more Federal money for it. Believe me, if there's a buck to be made from it the large drug companies will be shelling out the money for it. There is no rational reason why tax dollars should be going into this.

There is also no real reason for embryonic research in the first place as adult stem cell research will easily yield comparable results. It's just sick to create living human embryos for the sole purpose of detroying them. Tax money shouldn't be spent on this sort of thing. Adult stem cell research, sure. Embryonic, no.

Fact is, using a few cells THAT ARE GOING TO BE DESTROYED ANYWAY...

Not if they weren't created in the first place.
on Jun 19, 2005
If you embrace life, you must reject embryonic stem cell research as it destroys life.

Who decides if your life is more impornat than John Doe's? You? Someone died and made you GOD?

I addressed this in my article. Read it again. Possibity, versus real live people.


You did, so why resurrect it? What is your point in doing so?
on Jun 19, 2005
If you embrace life, you must reject embryonic stem cell research as it destroys life.

Who decides if your life is more impornat than John Doe's? You? Someone died and made you GOD?

I addressed this in my article. Read it again. Possibity, versus real live people.


You did, so why resurrect it? What is your point in doing so?
2 Pages1 2