My response is why wasn't invetro insemination also banned? Are not fetuses destroyed in this procedure
It was about ideology not reality. On Mar 13, 12:35 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > In this article the question relates to which President is more > serious and honest about stem cell research... Not only is Obama less > serious, but he is dishonest and a far greater ideologue... > > http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/using_embryoswithou... > > >>> That part of the ceremony, watched from the safe distance of my office, > >>> made me uneasy. The other part -- the ostentatious issuance of a > >>> memorandum on "restoring scientific integrity to government > >>> decision-making" -- would have made me walk out. > > Restoring? The implication, of course, is that while Obama is guided > solely by science, Bush was driven by dogma, ideology and politics. > > What an outrage. George Bush's nationally televised stem cell speech > was the most morally serious address on medical ethics ever given by > an American president. It was so scrupulous in presenting the best > case for both his view and the contrary view that until the last few > minutes, the listener had no idea where Bush would come out. > > Obama's address was morally unserious in the extreme. It was > populated, as his didactic discourses always are, with a forest of > straw men. Such as his admonition that we must resist the "false > choice between sound science and moral values." Yet, exactly 2 minutes > and 12 seconds later he went on to declare that he would never open > the door to the "use of cloning for human reproduction." > > Does he not think that a cloned human would be of extraordinary > scientific interest? And yet he banned it. > > Is he so obtuse not to see that he had just made a choice of ethics > over science? Yet, unlike President Bush, who painstakingly explained > the balance of ethical and scientific goods he was trying to achieve, > Obama did not even pretend to make the case why some practices are > morally permissible and others not. > > This is not just intellectual laziness. It is the moral arrogance of a > man who continuously dismisses his critics as ideological while he is > guided exclusively by pragmatism (in economics, social policy, foreign > policy) and science in medical ethics. > > Science has everything to say about what is possible. Science has > nothing to say about what is permissible. Obama's pretense that he > will "restore science to its rightful place" and make science, not > ideology, dispositive in moral debates is yet more rhetorical sleight > of hand -- this time to abdicate decision-making and color his own > ideological preferences as authentically "scientific." > > Dr. James Thomson, the discoverer of embryonic stem cells, said "if > human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little > bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough." Obama > clearly has not. > > On Mar 13, 10:37 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > and Intellectual they both are NOT > > >http://the-undercurrent.com/paper/obama-the-intellectual/ > > > >>> In action, Obama is clearly not an intellectual. He, like Bush and > > >>> other politicians, is a pragmatist—the exact opposite of an > > >>> intellectual. Issue after issue, including taxes, the Iraq war, and the > > >>> environment, reveals that Obama has made decisions, not with reference > > >>> to firm principles derived from a careful and scholarly investigation > > >>> of the facts, but by trying to find some middle ground in a landscape > > >>> of competing opinions. > > > What is different about Obama is that he self-consciously knows and > > proclaims his approach. But what’s so significant about that, if the > > approach itself is anti-intellectual? Obama openly embraces the view > > that it is impossible to use the intellect to ascertain the right way > > to handle the war or deal with the economy, and so he adopts the tack > > of just trying things and seeing what happens. Consider Obama’s claim > > that his “core economic theory is pragmatism, figuring out what > > works” (“Obamanomics,” NYT, 8/20/08). How is this any different from > > prior, allegedly non-intellectual politicians, other than that those > > politicians didn’t happen to be explicit about their methodology? > > > However much Obama seems to sport the trappings of an intellectual—and > > clearly he does—in practice, his policy consists in shooting from the > > hip, making short-range decisions without adherence to any firm set of > > guiding convictions. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
