Michael P. O'Connor

My Life

Bush vetos his first bill

Categories: News, Politics

Comments: 6 Comments

Published on: July 19, 2006

I think he should have vetoed more by now, but this is a bill that needed to be vetoed. It is wrong to kill a unborn child for personal gain. I know many are trying to change the terms used to talk about these unborn children, that is a step to dehumanize a human. But dehumanizing people does not change the fact that it is wrong to murder them. When Hitler dehumanized people of Jewish decent did that make it right to kill them in the contraption camps? When the slave traders in early american history dehumanize people from Africa did it make it right to put them into slaver? The answer to those questions is that it did not make it right, the same applies here, just because you dehumanize the unborn does not make them less human and just a item to be bought, sold, and destroyed.

6 Comments

Max says:

July 21, 2006 at 5:36 pm

Not that it’d make a difference, but you’re comparing cells and potential with fully grown human beings =]
If we’re comparing “a life is still a life”, then how is our policy towards middle east and when does it apply to poor people in new orleans?
Michael P. O'Connor says:

July 22, 2006 at 11:11 am

First it is a life. I am not saying animal life is equal to human life, but you recognize that it is alive. So what kind of life is it. I say that it is alive, and it has human DNA that makes it human, there for it deserves the same protection that an adult, child, or baby human deserves.
As to the situation in the Middle east, have I ever said I love the war? also have I said good to the people in New Orleans? Every one does not like war, and I wish that the war did not happen. Also you will note that Christian Groups (the biggest opposers to embryonic stem cells) were some of the first groups to get there.
Max says:

July 22, 2006 at 4:31 pm

Those groups didn’t get there, since it’s the bible belt, they were already there. What my point was is this: if you compare to how many people die every day, it would be easier to shift resources towards those areas that save the most life – since a life is a life, after all. So, wouldn’t it be easier to throw resources at africa, asia, and middle east to prevent those deaths, than spending money on abortions? A life is a life after all. Unfortunately, I think american life takes a much higher pecking order over a life in africa. At least in the government’s view.
Michael P. O'Connor says:

July 22, 2006 at 8:43 pm

Not all the groups were down there to start with. The LCMS set down a group, and they are headquartered in St. Louise, I don’t think that is down in the Bible belt.

Also my main point, is should we be trading one life for another one. As you correctly pointed out, one life is more more valuable then another, and that is what I am saying, that the life of the unborn has just as much value and importance of an adult with a disability, or any adult for that matter. We should research stem cells, just not embryonic ones, there are adult stem cells that are at this time showing promise and in a few cases there are cures from adult stem cells. Also there are pesentic stem cells, they are to have the same properties that they are claiming to embryonic stem cells, yet it does not involve the distraction of a human life, so there is (for most people) no moral problem.
Max says:

July 23, 2006 at 8:59 am

I agree with you on that point of the stem cell research. While I personally don’t have any issues with using embryonic cells, I realize others, like you, do have that issue. I think the scientists are jumping on those particular lines too easily because they are already available and don’t need a lot more research. Also because the rest of the world is already ahead of us in that field of research. I do think that all the other types of stem cell lines should be explored, but what are the consequences of other nations (for example: all of them) that are passing us by in this type of research. Zoom out a bit and look at the precedent set by this. Relative morality of some people (not even the majority in this case), that are closely tied with, or are part of, religious groups telling the government and scientists what to field they can’t do research in. Sounds like we’re becoming like Iran or the Taliban. Just think about that general precedent =] Also think about this – flip it around, the same minority wanted equal rights for women and minorities… and to allow abortions… should relative morality of a minority influence country policy? You hate how that minority created legalized abortion, would you be right in using the same principal to stem cells or other issues?
Michael P. O'Connor says:

July 23, 2006 at 3:00 pm

What we are asking is for life to be treated like it should be.

also the bill is not to make it legal, it is (sadly) legal right now, the bill was to use tax payers money on this.

Also (true) Christians are not against equal rights. Abortion is not an equal rights issue about making a choice, it is an equal rights issue to life for the unborn child.

Also you are 1/2 right the church (or other religion) should not be telling the government what laws should be made, but the church (and other religions) have the duty to step in when the state does something that is a gross violation of some ones human rights. Christians should stand up and fight for those those can not defend themselves. Back to Nazi Germany a good Christian by their nature should have done what ever in their power to protect people of jewish decent, just as now we Christians must stand up and defend the unborn.

Michael P. O'Connor

Bush vetos his first bill

Related