I love Ron Reagan's take on the subject. But having said that, I understand there are a multitude of people that have a completely different, and in their eyes justifiable, view.
Here is Ron Reagan's response to what he thought about the president's veto. "Well, There is no surprise here. He said he would veto it. This is basically the same legislation he vetoed before. It is scientifically unsound, his position, and it is morally incoherent, as well. The White House implies that by destroying these pre-embryos—they're not technically embryos—pre-embryos or blastocyst, that you are committing what is tantamount to murder. At the same time, we are talking about in-vitro fertilization clinic pre-embryos here that are kept in cold storage. At the same time, he ignores the fact that 400,000 or so, as many as half a million of these embryos, will simply be destroyed otherwise, if nothing else is done with them. So, apparently, if you use these pre-embryos to develop life-saving therapies, you are committing murder. If you throw them into a dumpster, however, that appears to be, I don't know, spring cleaning perhaps." Later, when Reagan was engaged in a discussion with another panel member, who basically said the government should be involved in the adult stem cells, but shouldn't be in the embryonic (I did abbreviate his comments), he responded " Morality is about suffering and blastocysts do not suffer. People suffer. People with myriad conditions and diseases, who are waiting for cures and treatment, suffers. And that's what embryonic stem cell research holds out promises, relieving that suffering." Anyway, that's my two cents. I am sure there are people on this list who entirely disagree with this stance. Quadius On 6/21/07, John S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eric, there is no so. I am a Christian and I will try to forgive him for his sins against the world, the people of America and God. Maybe his good friend Putin will give him a bowl of dioxin soup while they brag about who has made more rich friends wealthier and laugh at the starving. john ----- Original Message ---- From: Eric W Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 10:56:40 PM Subject: RE: [QUAD-L] Vetoed again ok, i'll bite, and so................ Eric W Rudd [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- *From:* John S. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Wednesday, June 20, 2007 9:24 PM *To:* [email protected] *Subject:* Re: [QUAD-L] Vetoed again I think his dedication to the pursuit of ignorance should earn him a reward. I was surprized the pope didn't dope slap him half to death. It isn't as though you can laugh him off anymore. john ----- Original Message ---- From: Kevin M. Rudolph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: RollinOn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 7:05:08 PM Subject: RE: [QUAD-L] Vetoed again The prick did it again? Kevin M. Rudolph Louisville, Kentucky 40214 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web site: http://www.turbokev.com Instant Messengers: AOL: kyprincecharming ICQ: 28414413 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo: turbokev -----Original Message----- *From:* RollinOn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Wednesday, June 20, 2007 3:20 PM *To:* [email protected] *Subject:* [QUAD-L] Vetoed again Well itʼs official! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070620/pl_nm/bush_stemcells_dc_6 Mark Jackson RollinOn No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.1/854 - Release Date: 6/19/2007 1:12 PM ------------------------------ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43910/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail> with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43910/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail> ------------------------------ Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48517/*http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7>
