Monday, October 11, 2004

More on the Debate

I've received a few questions in my comments from the last post on the debate so I thought I'd do a follow up and answer.

Tim wrote in part, "I was somewhat disappointed in the political line that Bush seems to be walking on embryonic stem cell research. He is against it (life begins at conception and stem cell research destroys life) and yet says he supports it when done ethically (first president to support it)."

Tim, I appreciate your observation.

This is what President Bush said in the debate:

"BUSH: Embryonic stem-cell research requires the destruction of life to create a stem cell. I'm the first president ever to allow funding -- federal funding -- for embryonic stem-cell research. I did to because I too hope that we'll discover cures from the stem cells and from the research derived.

But I think we've got to be very careful in balancing the ethics and the science.

And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend any more money beyond the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in action, because science is important, but so is ethics, so is balancing life. To destroy life to save life is -- it's one of the real ethical dilemmas that we face.

There is going to be hundreds of experiments off the 22 lines that now exist that are active, and hopefully we find a cure. But as well, we need to continue to pursue adult stem-cell research.
I helped double the NIH budget to $28 billion a year to find cures. And the approach I took is one that I think is a balanced and necessary approach, to balance science and the concerns for life."


Tim, my understanding from the above is that Bush allowed the 70 lines of stem stells that had already been removed, and therefore has already killed the embryo, to be used. And he chose not to allow any more funding for new lines.

And I remember a few years ago when this was a huge debate because C-Span covered the issue and it was one of the biggest stories because those in favor of killing the unborn were up in arms about his decision, mainly because it favored life.

So I think that Bush did the best he could with what he had to work with at the time.



Anonymous you made some good points. I wasn't aware of Bush owning the lumber company. So Bush needs to get his facts straight :) And the questions about Kerry being wishy-washy versus asking Bush to name three mistakes isn't fair just on the face.

However, my arguement is that Bush did answer the question even though the pundits said he skirted it.

The way he answered the question was by deciphering the question and he answered his critics by telling them, no I didn't make a mistake in going to war, cutting taxes or anything else. (my paraphrase)

Here is his actual answer concerning the mistakes - "Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV."


Hi Jeff - thanks for posting. I love your website and am glad you have it online. You guessed my reasons for thinking Gibson was biased....it was his questions.

First, he didn't have ONE question on homosexual marriage. Why? Because Kerry is losing black voters and the reason why is because Kerry supports gay marriage and opposed a constitutional amendment to make marriage between a man and a woman.

He also didn't have any questions on the immigration issues, which could've been used against both candidates.

When he opened the debate before most the major networks were rolling, he mentioned the audience being not as stacked for Kerry due to the Red Sox game.

And there was not ONE question about the Swift Vet controversy or Kerry's service in Vietnam.

And maybe Gibson was more fair then Lehrer, but to me, his bias was obvious because he deliberately avoided the gay take over of marriage issue.




4 Comments:

Blogger CALScott said...

Gibson chose the questions based on all the audience submitted questions.

If you listened closely to the debates, he mentioned that there were "alot of questions along this topic" when he introduced the audience members who read the questions.

Because they are undecided voters, I'm guessing that they "gay marriage takeover" got a low response from the audience and was not addressed.

Polls show that the electorate does not approve of gay marriage but polls also show that its only a do or die issue to about 15%.

Lets put this in perspective in regards to the debate.....

1080 soldiers have died looking for non-existant WMD's.
1.7 Million jobs lost.
Bob and Steve setting up house.

Priorities anyone?

October 11, 2004 at 3:44 PM  
Blogger Jeremy Pierce said...

Kerry doesn't support gay marriage. His position is basically the same as Cheney's. He thinks states should decide whether to allow civil unions. He doesn't favor using the word 'marriage' to describe them. He doesn't think any view on it should be written in the Constitution either, since the Constitution isn't about that sort of thing. The only difference with Cheney, as far as I can tell, is that he seems to think it's ok for judges to be the ones to decide for states, whereas Cheney insists that it should be the legislatures and not judges.

October 11, 2004 at 5:45 PM  
Blogger tim said...

Thanks for the post and thoughtful reply.

October 12, 2004 at 2:04 AM  
Blogger lloydletta said...

Bush is trying to have it both ways on this issue. If he is saying, these embryos have already been destroyed, so why not use them, the same argument could be used for the embryos created during IVF that are slated to be destroyed.

Also, Pharyngula has a good illustrated lesson on the distinction between children and embryos. It's worth looking at.

October 16, 2004 at 12:30 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home