Embryo ethics: 400,000 Bush Babies

True, however, if he had consistant beliefs, Bush would be for the banning of IVF methods as they destroy human life. He may not be able to save those in the past, but he could save those in the future. This is essentially the same argument for banning abortion. The aborted are gone, a sunk cost but one can prevent future abortions.He's obviously not. I've had this discussion before with some fundementalists. Usually most of them avoid the elephant in the room. Either they are ignorant (very possible) or they do not want to examine their illogical processes in their decision making (again probable).In Bush's case I don't think either actually apply as Dubya has a long history of making ignorant decisions while being surrounded by informed people who are telling him what he needs to know and then calling for Daddy to pull him out of his self dug grave.Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

quote:

---

How does invitro fertilization destroy human life?

---

IVF usually involves extracting somewhere between 20~50 eggs from the mother, fertilizing them with sperm in a petri dish, zap them to start growth, remove any potentially defective embryos, and implanting around 20~25 eggs in the woman's body. The rest go to one of three places. Science for study invariably resulting in destruction. Biohzard destruction, or freezing. Furthermore, the vast majority or for the truly unluckly, none of the embryos implant, and are either absorbed or removed from the woman's body. In at least three different steps human life is destroyed in IVF.If stem cell research destroys human life by destroying a few cells, then IVF is mass murder.I do not even understand the majority of your post as to how it relates to the subject. What does freedom of speech have do with this? What does opinions have to do with this? This is about public stated policy and action (or inaction for that matter).

quote:

---

Obviously, you just scanned through my posts rather than actually read them. The point I was trying to make was that just because I support free speech doesn't mean I'm going to go out and speak out about every free speech related topic under the sun.

---

I still don't understand your point in how it is even relevant. President Bush made specific claims about his platform to his voting base. His actions conflict with these statements. Therefore he is not consistant in his claims and his actual behavior. Furthermore, you are not president nor are able to have a key role in any banning of a particular action one can take.

quote:

---

Bush has made it blatently obvious that he is anti-abortion.

---

Questionable. He made statements to get votes. Whether or not he actually is, is something else. Bush has stated he was for banning abortion and was for actions to overturn roe vs. wade. He has flip flopped from his previous stance. This would seem to indicate he did what Romney is currently doing: aligning his views to match his voting base.

quote:

---

Now, the question is has Bush spoken out in favor of IVF?

---

He's spoken out in favor of people adopting what he calls "snowflakes" or the frozen embryos. Bush has praised IVF.He's a hypocrite.If Bush was serious about his whole "culture of life" he'd be on the warpath to stop IVF. But teletubbies is on.