Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The abortion issue: pro-choice vs. anti-abortion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (160)	3/16/2009 8:23:13 PM
From: LLCF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 286

<That's pretty much wrong. The budget gets passed by congress, but it gets signed by the president. If it was passed over his veto maybe you'd have a point but it wasn't.> It's not at all "pretty much wrong"... in fact it's not wrong at all. In fact, as you know there is a long process whereby ANY funding or action reaches the presidents desk... including introduction of these programs by our elected officials... NOT the president. {"Bush twice vetoed legislation that would have lifted the restrictions he imposed."} In fact if you want MORE TO THE POINT, the REAL point is why are there so many abortions (and more to the point in stem cell research, multiple blastocysts produced for each invitro fertilization) and invitro fertilizations happening ON THE LOCAL LEVEL??? It's always easy to grandstand and point fingers. <Also more to the point the executive order was what blocked federal funding of abortion.> It's NOT more to the point... the whole point of my post is stem cell research. Keep trying though... I'm sure there's a reason to blame Obama for all sorts of stuff that lawmakers,elected by their local constituents, passed long ago (and Bush, at the federal level blocked). It's worth repeating one of the original point/counterpoints: " Their statement about that is a direct logical consequence of their moral positions." And I repeat... their statements is AT BEST a slanted misrepresentation ("Obama responsible for killing) of the whole situation. There is a whole chain of events, there is "Killing" going on regardless. Again, the more you bring this up, the more obvious it is that its really probably worse than I even portrayed it. <The real original ban was very coherent. No federal funding for this type of research at all. Bush made a more complex ban later.> Tim, really... please post specifics... you don't know what you're taking about. Bush changed it because "this type of research" (from your quote) made no sense. There wasn't even moral grounds on a lot of it.. Bush had to change it... he realized it wasn't coherent. Please post specifics to back these assertions up. You guys can blame Obama all you want for things that all of our lawmakers and judges together have evolved to up to this point, or get to work on the local level to make real change. Fine by me either way... but it just looks ignorant from my perspective. DAK