And what boundary was that, again?

“This bill would support the taking of innocent human life of the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our society needs to respect, so I vetoed it,” Bush said.

In other words, killing an innocent person to save the lives of others crosses a bright line, and is always wrong, not matter what. Got it.

It’s interesting, though, that you didn’t mention that such a line had been crossed last month, when we nailed the Big Z:

Four other people, including a woman and a child, were killed with al-Zarqawi and Abu Abdul-Rahman al-Iraqi, the terrorist’s spiritual consultant.

That’s funny, I could have sworn there was a boundary here a minute ago, but now it’s just completely vanished. Odd, that. I mean, we killed a very bad man—which, while not a great thing in and of itself, was better than letting him live—thereby saving scores of lives. The problem is, we had to kill an innocent to save them, and I had been lead to believe that was wrong.

You know what, Mr. President, I think I see a way to a compromise here. If you’ll let us research embryonic stem cells, we’ll promise to blow up the embryos with tiny little bombs first. Deal?