Osamma b'In Vitro
I find that humor eases the overwhelming urge to punch political leaders in the nose:
¶ 7:59 PM**by Def: |
Friday, July 21, 2006
The real reason for the veto
There seems to be widespread failure among mainstream editorial writers and pundits to understand the logic behind President Bush's very first veto. Tony Snow states that the President considers the use of these embryos for research to be murder, although simply discarding them is apparently OK. He then states that it is not illegal to to use them. This logical sequence reveals all we need to know about Bush's intent.
This President has never seen an obscenely bloated spending bill that merited a veto. A new legislative act has never before crossed his desk without his signature. Even when he had no intention of complying with the laws he signed, he signed them anyway and appended "signing statements" indicating his intent to ignore them. He has engaged in this questionably legal manuever 705 times since he took office.
So why would he veto this bill? Because Federal approval of embryonic stem cell research would bolster the argument that these featureless clusters of dividing cells do not yet meet the definition of being human. This is an important consideration for a President whose rapidly shrinking base obviously intends to see Roe v. Wade overturned during his tenure.
The arguments that will certainly be made in front of the Supreme Court within the next several years will include the assertion that human life begins at conception and is therefore entitled to full protection under the law from that moment. This is the logic behind the President's veto. Should the Court accept that argument fully, not only abortion but most forms of birth control would be found to violate that protection.
This veto is not about stem cell research. It is about the future of reproductive rights in this country.
¶ 11:00 AM**by 9Driver: |
Shouting into the closet to inform and entertain the 10 people who actually read this thing. In our new format as an online magazine, we take pride in our reporting and opinions.
Please leave reader feedback on our online magazine message board so that we can better serve you.
“There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” -Paul Wolfowitz