Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical
President Bush’s public statement, given at the White House, justifying his second veto of a bill liberalizing stem cell research restrictions, included the following:
“Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical -- and it is not the only option before us.”
I could not help but juxtapose this against a report in the Economist magazine entitled “Unfriendly Fire.” It described the inadvertent killing of seven Afgan policemen by American air strikes. A second example of unfriendly fire was the bombing of a Medrassa, alleged to be an Al Quaeda hideout, that killed seven children.
This incidents, of course, are only two recent excerpts from a long litany of similar events in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Am I the only one struck by an apparent inconsistency between President Bush’s stem cell and foreign policies?
“Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical -- and it is not the only option before us.”
I could not help but juxtapose this against a report in the Economist magazine entitled “Unfriendly Fire.” It described the inadvertent killing of seven Afgan policemen by American air strikes. A second example of unfriendly fire was the bombing of a Medrassa, alleged to be an Al Quaeda hideout, that killed seven children.
This incidents, of course, are only two recent excerpts from a long litany of similar events in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Am I the only one struck by an apparent inconsistency between President Bush’s stem cell and foreign policies?
posted by dormgrandpop at 11:21 AM
1 Comments:
Nice insight. Actually I always believed that double standards are what that keep the west always in conflict with the rest.
Post a Comment
<< Home