From TomPaine.com
It’s Not Ethical?
Submitted by Alec Dubro on June 21, 2007 - 10:49am.
President Pro-Life George W. Bush brandished his principles for an audience of activists in the White House East Room and proudly vetoed the federal stem-cell funding bill.
With breathtaking irony, Bush stated, “Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical.” He called the United States “a nation founded on the principle that all human life is sacred.”
Let’s put aside this fanciful rendering of America’s early history, which, if it was founded on such a principle, we had a funny way of demonstrating it to the original inhabitants. Instead, let’s think for a moment about Bush’s record of not destroying human life.
If, in his mind, he was not killing thousands of Iraqis to make life better for the survivors, then why was he killing them? Apparently, then, it’s OK to destroy human life to alter geopolitics, to enhance the power of the United States, to seek revenge on collaterally-placed victims, to try out new weapons and tactics, to give our untested armies a chance to see actual combat, or, just for the holy Hell of it.
In short, destroying human life is fine, unless you’re doing it to save human life. And, if the United States has surmounted its bloody history and moved into a period in which all life is sacred, then a fine way to show it would be to, now and today, stop shooting in Iraq.
But you and I know that Bush means no such thing. When a fundamentalist-posturing, millennial, faith-based militarist says "human life," he means undifferentiated clumps of cells; he does not mean fully-formed human beings. And he certainly does not mean dark, moneyless foreigners.
Of course, Texas Governor George Bush gleefully and self-righteously sent prisoners to their doom, so it’s possible that his moral positions on what does and doesn’t constitute sacred human life are, shall we say, expedient at best and fraudulent at worst.
In any case, Bush’s indifference to human suffering in the defense of nation-building is, at this point, equivalent to any other military dictator—including Saddam Hussein. Sacred life, indeed.
Submitted by Alec Dubro on June 21, 2007 - 10:49am.
President Pro-Life George W. Bush brandished his principles for an audience of activists in the White House East Room and proudly vetoed the federal stem-cell funding bill.
With breathtaking irony, Bush stated, “Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical.” He called the United States “a nation founded on the principle that all human life is sacred.”
Let’s put aside this fanciful rendering of America’s early history, which, if it was founded on such a principle, we had a funny way of demonstrating it to the original inhabitants. Instead, let’s think for a moment about Bush’s record of not destroying human life.
If, in his mind, he was not killing thousands of Iraqis to make life better for the survivors, then why was he killing them? Apparently, then, it’s OK to destroy human life to alter geopolitics, to enhance the power of the United States, to seek revenge on collaterally-placed victims, to try out new weapons and tactics, to give our untested armies a chance to see actual combat, or, just for the holy Hell of it.
In short, destroying human life is fine, unless you’re doing it to save human life. And, if the United States has surmounted its bloody history and moved into a period in which all life is sacred, then a fine way to show it would be to, now and today, stop shooting in Iraq.
But you and I know that Bush means no such thing. When a fundamentalist-posturing, millennial, faith-based militarist says "human life," he means undifferentiated clumps of cells; he does not mean fully-formed human beings. And he certainly does not mean dark, moneyless foreigners.
Of course, Texas Governor George Bush gleefully and self-righteously sent prisoners to their doom, so it’s possible that his moral positions on what does and doesn’t constitute sacred human life are, shall we say, expedient at best and fraudulent at worst.
In any case, Bush’s indifference to human suffering in the defense of nation-building is, at this point, equivalent to any other military dictator—including Saddam Hussein. Sacred life, indeed.
posted by Jackie at 12:09 PM
1 Comments:
My thoughts exactly. It is entirely hypocritical to expound on human life when your entire administration has been about either snuffing human life, ignoring the suffering of humans or denying aid, comfort and healthcare to humans.
Bush is a total moron, and I do not believe he is so stupid that he does not realize what he has done. In fact, I think he revels in what he has done. May God have mercy on his soul, because history won't.
Post a Comment
<< Home