Taxpayers funding a war for 6 years in which innocents have lost their lives or taxpayers funding embryonic stem cell research that could possibly save the lives of those suffering with all sorts of afflictions.
Do the unborn really have that much more clout over the suffering LIVING? I see both arguments, but common sense has to step in sometime.
Re: Which is morally worse?
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:35 pm
by dbackjon
No problems with embryonic stem cell research.
As far as war goes - what is the nature of how it started? I don't have moral issues with the bombing of hiroshima, for example.
Re: Which is morally worse?
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:44 pm
by catamount man
I was referring to Chris Smith's comments after Obama repealed Bush's anti-funding bill. He made it sound as if HE was a moralist, despite the fact it was his party that ran up a good chunk of this deficit that we face on a "war" which was based on no facts at all and cost over 4,000 americans their very lives.
Re: Which is morally worse?
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:46 pm
by dbackjon
catamount man wrote:I was referring to Chris Smith's comments after Obama repealed Bush's anti-funding bill. He made it sound as if HE was a moralist, despite the fact it was his party that ran up a good chunk of this deficit that we face on a "war" which was based on no facts at all and cost over 4,000 americans their very lives.
Ok - yeah, that is messed up. Definately the Iraqi war lacks a great deal of moral rightness.