And what boundary was that, again?
July 20, 2006
“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?
July 29, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Please. Consider that al-Z had -on his own admission- committed any number of sins, while the embryos in question around Bush’s veto haven’t even had the chance to yet to alienate millions of Westerners. Or Easterners, if you like.
And then there is the argument that killing during a time of war is a sad necessity.
But in the end, you’ve simply created a strawman that you can easily knock down. Disappointing, Sophist. Disappointing.
August 10, 2006 at 5:44 pm
I can see, now, why you comment on the pandagon site even though you have your own blog. 1) You’re just as big a wack-job as those other queers and 2) you have no traffic.
What a loser. Even your one comment above thinks you’re stupid.
Well, good luck with that!
September 2, 2006 at 9:56 pm
I see your point here. True, a very bad man was killed, and while casualties are almost a given in war, it’s the fact that bush gives far more attention to embryos that haven’t even fully developed yet than he does to innocent “casualties of war” with lives and connections and people who love them.
And also, couldn’t studying stem cells to find the cures for deadly diseases also save lives? So apparently bombing is okay but scientific research is not.
hmm… now my brain hurts. Anyway, good point!