You would think that the man saying "Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical." would be anti-war.

Perhaps he should have said "Destroying American human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical."

Apart from anything else, an embryo (especially at the development stage involved in this kind of research) is about as much human life as an egg is a chicken!

... but destroying human life for oil is OK, of course.

Gee, thanks for the ethics lesson, George.

The mind truly, bloody *b-o-g-g-l-e-s* ....

"Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical."

?? says Mr Warmonger. how many people have died due to this man? the US is responsible for millions of deaths due to coups around the world. (not that the UK is innocent of course - but we dont come out with such bollocks as George 'Special Needs' Bush)

i suppose this leaves the UK/europe to be at the forefront of something for once. (my father has parkinsons so i have a vested interest in this)

luckily our govermnent isnt run by religious nutters (they are just greedy idiots lol)

"Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical."... So why has the US invaded so many countries recently?

I destroy cells all the time, these are all human life. A very large number of women in the "Western world" routinely destroy or impair cells that have the potential of new life through birth control devices / drugs (not talking the hot potato that is abortion here). A very large number of men routinely waste cells with the potential of human life. A very large number of human eggs cells that are fertilised wind up being rejected (miscarriage) even before the mother knows it's happened. Only a very, very small number of potential new human life cells actually make it anywhere near enough viability.

It's a divine right to posess a gun, the sole purpose of which is to destroy (usually human) life.

Anybody notice the intense double standards and blinkered Victorian-era stupidity here?

"Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical."

Good to see he is consistent!!

Note to 'president' Bush: Starting and maintaining a bloody, useless, unwinnable war because you are unhappy with the leadership there, a bad person said he'd hurt your Dad, or you covet the region's oil or other resources (or your sanity is as stable as Windows ME), is unethical, immoral, bad for your karma, and generally in poor taste.

Refresh my memory.

How long does the world have to wait before this idiot is removed from office?

...we are talking about a leader of a first world nation, with his finger on what is left of the US nuclear arsenal, who claims that God speaks to him directly, and to advise him. Well from one George to another, you keep it up and we will all be talking directly to the man upstairs!

losing the will to live with this man; no comment! Or actually....lets have one.

I often day dream about what it would be like to be put face to face with someone like Bush or Blair in a situation where they are stripped of their Political identity and are mere humans just like you and me; lets say a mid air plane collision where I was off on my hols to greece and Bush was in Air Force One heading for a terrorist detention centre in Romania. Neither of us had sufficient injuries to kill us and seeing as the US cant come and pick us up due to explaining what it was doing there in the first place we would have time for a little chat!

Can you imagine the questions?...the sheer pleasure of being able to pick someone apart for what they have done. Dont get me wrong I dont usually extend myself to verbally assassinating people; to be fair I dont think I even have the intellect to do it; but in the case of Bushwakka ill make an exception.

I have a personal idea of hell, and it is your worst fear manifested onto your being for eternity, so i would like to ask Bush his most primal fear; and then ask him how he is going to deal with it consuming his soul for time neverending!

I know it doesnt bring back the thousands in both the US and abroad he has killed, but it does give a sense of satisfaction knowing there is always balance to be restored; and this man is sat at the top of the see saw with an enormous weight at the other end which one day is going to roll off. I hope it happens in his life time.

I think Europe should go on a killing spree to rid the world of ALL extremists... at the minute we tend to be dealing with a few extremist muslims (if you want to call them muslims that is).... so now we could turn our sites on the extremist christian nut-jobs, the extremist animal rights nut-jobs, the extremist scientology nut-jobs, etc etc.... once that's done we will be left with a world population that manages to wipe out human hunger, poverty and double-standards.

Problem solved.... and as the world leader at the time I would have a sign above earth to all visiting aliens saying "Welcome to Utopia" :)

Having said that, would I count as a Utopian extremist??

And how, exactly, is it ethical to let people die who could otherwise be saved by the advances in medicine that stem cells can potentially provide?

Roll on November 2008 when this idiot is removed from power. Unless he manages to have the constitution amended, thus allowing him a 3rd term of office. Or maybe I shouldn't be giving King George bad ideas...

if Bush actually objects to the destruction of embryonic stem cells, he should do his research and fix the source problem.

Here is the flow chart of what actually happens today.

A--Fertility clinics produce extra embryos to aid infertile couples.

B--Excess embryos are destroyed when no longer needed.

His holier-then-thou veto does nothing to change this. All people are asking for is the flow chart to be modified like this:

A--Fertility clinics produce extra embryos to aid infertile couples.

B--Excess embryos are slated to be destroyed or used to save lives when no longer needed. C--Decision point, Do we destroy an embryo with the normal process, or use it for research?

Once again George has responded to a problem in Afghanistan by invading Iraq.

www.nationalnightmare.com :-)

..is as good an argument AGAINST exporting democracy to other countries as it's possible to think of.

Nick:

"A very large number of women in the "Western world" routinely destroy or impair cells that have the potential of new life through birth control devices / drugs"

Yup - and many regileous types consider that a sin.

"A very large number of men routinely waste cells with the potential of human life."

That too.

I think part of some people's problem with stem cell research, cloning and so on is that once mankind can create a human life from, say, a single skin cell the whole 'potential of human life' argument becomes a lot more complicated and those who seek to control our lives through religeon find simple arguments much more effective than complex ones when it comes to bending us to their will.

"It's a divine right to posess a gun, the sole purpose of which is to destroy (usually human) life."

I think it's a constitutional rather than divine right (in the US anyway) and was intended to allow militias to keep arms in order to defend their country from threats like, for example, being bent over and shafted by an ultra-rich elite of oil men and arms dealers hiding behind religeous fundamentalism and fascism-in-the-name-of-security (applied only to those not in that elite group, of course) in order to become ultra-ultra-rich.

Shouldn't that be considered some form of suicide since George is operating on a single brain cell.

Just recently I saw one of the presidential "contenders" (republican I think). Say he was now against stem cell research.

His reason was that recently he was talking about the subject with a researcher who explained that any embryos created were destroyed after (15 I think) a few days.

He then dais that right then he imagined a room full of these “human beings” being killed off and that’s why he changed his support.

He FUCKING IMAGINED a scene from the Matrix or some other bad SCI-FI and used that to base his judgment of reality on.

Instead of doing the smart thing and asking to see how the whole process was handled or learning more, he imagined it. Shit! Imagine this loser gets into office. Remember the last time we did something on a national level because of something we imagined (daycare based child molestation rings on every block, WMD in Iraq, trickle down economics)?

We are so fucked if this is the best we can hope to elect.

I can imagine all politicians are pederasts, does that mean it's all right to lock em up and brand them sexual predators for life?

Typical incompetent reporting. You can do as much embryonic stem cell research you want to in America. This is only about the U.S. Government paying for it.

If there were truly a "scientific consensus" on the potential of this research the pharmaceutical companies would be spending billions on it themselves. They are not. Why? Private investment is heavily focused on adult stem cell research. Again, why? (For the answer, follow the money)

For once I would like to see one of the advocates of U.S. Government funding of embryonic stem cell research give some concrete answers, like what the ratio of research spending should be between adult, cord blood, embryonic stem cell research? I also would like to see someone prioritize the disease areas where embryonic stem cells research offers potential. Is Parkinson's more important than Alzheimer's? Of course, answering either of these questions requires leadership, something most advocates for advocation's sake are simple incapable of.