It took over five years for George W. Bush to issue his first presidential veto. For the past five years we have seen him sign every piece of legislation the GOP rubber stamp Congress has sent him. Cuts to student loan programs, approved. Nine billion in handouts to coal companies, approved. Six billion in handouts to gas companies, approved. Pharmaceutical companies wanted 1.2 trillion in the new prescription drug plan, approved. Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while deficits surge, approved. Given the incendiary situation in the Middle East, the Iraq War, and the countless scandals his administration has faced, what did George Bush save his first veto for? To continue his crusade against stem cell research.
The part Bush left out of course is that at least 90% of such embryos are actually not adopted, they are destroyed. The stem cell advocates merely want to use the discarded embryos for research to try and cure some of mankind's most egregious diseases and ailments. It has the support of the American people and both parties. The Bush logic is not only skewed, it is asinine. His argument centers on outlawing the destruction of embryos, which will be destroyed anyway. So, in the mind of George Bush, throwing the embryos away in the trash is acceptable but using them to better mankind is somehow immoral? The cynic inside of me wonders if the Pharmaceutical Lobby that owns Bush would prefer a sick world where medication can alleviate symptoms but not impart a cure.
Moving past the why, Bush then attacked the proposed law by offering up this hypocritical nugget, "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it." Excuse me? What morality is Bush speaking of? The morality that sees him wage wars against countries that posed no threat to us and after his lies are exposed that led us into the war he claims he would do it all again? There are over 2,500 dead American soldiers Mr. Bush. Do you value their lives as much? Did you cross a "moral boundary" when you lied to Congress to start this war that has claimed their lives? What about the lives of the 100,000 dead Iraqis? Do they count in your vision of what a "decent society" is? What about the people that we have tortured to death in the name of "democracy"? What about the facts that the United Nations now says that one-third of all casualties in Lebanon are children? Does the "taking of innocent human life" mean all life to you, or just those that are politically expedient to you?
Why does this president place more value on the potential life of an embryo that has already been slated to be destroyed than he does for an American soldier? Life is all life and being pro-life should mean the protection of all life. The Muslim child in a desert half a world away cannot have less value in your eyes if you are to be consistent. As a Christian, God charged us with saving all life for His kingdom, not just those in our country or those that we can use politically. It means if you say that you care about the life of Terri Schiavo, then you must also care about the life of Sun Hudson. (http://www.opednews.com/wade_032005_delay_schiavo.htm). It means that the lives of the poor in New Orleans must have the same value as the lives of the unborn fetus. It means that the lives of those you would spend a lifetime opposing must have the same value as those you would spend a lifetime supporting.