“Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical...”-GWB

Huh ? I can't believe he actually said that, and I don't have a source. Apparently it's quite recent. It's wrong on so many, many levels if it actually came from out of his lips...

Edit...found it in context. Please excuse me and cut this one.

[Buckle Up]

Don't we do that all the time when we execute murderers (especially in Texas, Mr. President)?

Originally Posted by Buckleupp

Don't we do that all the time when we execute murderers (especially in Texas, Mr. President)?

Nah that's nothing to do with saving human life that's just revenge plain and simple.

So I guess those folks in (pick a country we are at war with) are not human?

[Prints Myshkin]

Originally Posted by Doug4.7

So I guess those folks in (pick a country we are at war with) are not human?

If GWB or any world leader had indeed made this statement (I haven't found a definitive link yet), then yes. I think on some level they're not viewing enemies as fully human. Or at least in some sense not all human lives are equal. Maybe the thought is that enemies of the state have forfeited some of their rights. This still doesn't address the question of collateral damage, which for me is the biggest sticky wicket in the morality of warfare.

Either that or they are having terrible fun saying satirical things.

Originally Posted by Prints Myshkin

If GWB or any world leader had indeed made this statement.

He did. I heard it this morning on NPR and it made my wife & I look at each other (in one of those, "Did you just hear what I heard?" ways...).

[Buckle Up]

Yup, he sure did say it, and here's the linkie to the transcript from the White House itself.

[Mad Jay]

Since then, my administration has made more than $130 million available for research on stem cell lines derived from embryos that had already been destroyed.

$130million spent on saving lives, and $145 billion spent on the "War on terror" this year alone. A fine one to talk about destroying human lives to save human lives!!

I'm not always up to date on US politics: I saw the quote in an editorial piece here and once taken out of context and inserted into an article on Iraq it really does make him look bad (I could use a few other words here, but...), prompting something of a knee jerk reaction.
However, the actual quote (from Buckleupp's link) was:

Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical -- and it is not the only option before us. We're already seeing remarkable advances in the science and therapeutic uses of stem cells drawn from adults and children, and the blood from umbilical cords -- with no harm to the donor. Researchers value embryonic stem cells because they are pluripotent -- which means that they have the potential to develop into nearly all the cell types and tissues in the body. Researchers are now developing promising new techniques that offer the potential to produce pluripotent stem cells -- without having to destroy human life.
For example, several new studies released earlier this month showed the potential of reprogramming adult cells -- such as skin cells -- to make them function like embryonic stem cells. It's exciting new research taking place in the United States of America. Scientists from all over the country hailed this as an important breakthrough. And I'm pleased to report to you that my administration and the NIH helped fund this exciting work. The taxpayers' dollars are going to new kinds of therapies, new kinds of science, new kinds of work that do not cross a moral and ethical line.

I'm all for stem cell research, and I don't believe that it would result in wholesale abortions as some rabid conservatives seem to. Still, it seems kind of lame to cut a few words out of a speech and use them to illustrate a completely different subject.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by charlie23

I'm all for stem cell research, and I don't believe that it would result in wholesale abortions as some rabid conservatives seem to. Still, it seems kind of lame to cut a few words out of a speech and use them to illustrate a completely different subject.

But that's the point. He comes up with a moral principal that will save the lives of some small clusters of cells. When it comes to applying that moral principal to actual human beings, he can't be bothered to follow it himself. You have to wonder about a guy who cares more about cells than he does about inmates and Iraqis.

[Buckle Up]

Originally Posted by Steve

But that's the point. He comes up with a moral principal that will save the lives of some small clusters of cells. When it comes to applying that moral principal to actual human beings, he can't be bothered to follow it himself. You have to wonder about a guy who cares more about cells than he does about inmates and Iraqis.

and living pregnant women

But that's the point. He comes up with a moral principal that will save the lives of some small clusters of cells. When it comes to applying that moral principal to actual human beings, he can't be bothered to follow it himself. You have to wonder about a guy who cares more about cells than he does about inmates and Iraqis.

I don't wonder about him anymore, I have a pretty solid opinion of the man and it certainly isn't flattering. His ideology is a very big part of the reason that I haven't been back to my country in 6 years.
I just got confused from reading the partial quote as applied to Iraq, before I found out about the Stem Cell speech. One would hope that even he wouldn't be stupid enough to say that while referring to his war.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Ah, and probably next on Bush's veto list, more proof that he really, really dosen't care about human life:

here

The House, seeking to reverse a linchpin of Bush administration policy, voted Thursday to give aid to overseas groups that provide contraceptive devices such as condoms and birth control pills.

Cause preventing death and maiming via pregnancy is bad.

[snapdragonfly]

Yeah but we don't care about them damn Ay-rabs anyhow.

[pinqy]

Fighting in a war or actions other than war when "we" are risking our own lives just can't fairly be considered "destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life." There's a difference between outright conflict and intentional destruction with no risk. Self-defense is not considered murder, but killing someone who you believe will kill someone else is.

pinqy

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by pinqy

Self-defense is not considered murder, but killing someone who you believe will kill someone else is.

This article discusses defense of others: http://www.njlaws.com/self-defense.htm
"One may justifiably intervene in defense of any person who is in actual or apparent imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and in so doing he may use such force as he has reason to believe, and does believe, necessary under the circumstances. The defender must be reasonable in his belief that the third party is in dire peril of death or serious bodily harm. He must also have a reasonable basis to believe that the force he uses is necessary to protect the apparent victim from the threatened harm."

[Buckle Up]

Originally Posted by pinqy

Fighting in a war or actions other than war when "we" are risking our own lives just can't fairly be considered "destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life." There's a difference between outright conflict and intentional destruction with no risk. Self-defense is not considered murder, but killing someone who you believe will kill someone else is.

When did the word "murder" come into the equation? He didn't say murder; he said "destroying human life." Whether you shot a terrorist or accidentally poisoned a 6-year-old by feeding him peanut butter, you have still destroyed human life.

I agree that we must view comments in context, but I also feel strongly that this comment does blatantly point out W's hypocrisy and conditional morality.

[pinqy]

Originally Posted by Chloe

This article discusses defense of others: http://www.njlaws.com/self-defense.htm
"One may justifiably intervene in defense of any person who is in actual or apparent imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and in so doing he may use such force as he has reason to believe, and does believe, necessary under the circumstances. The defender must be reasonable in his belief that the third party is in dire peril of death or serious bodily harm. He must also have a reasonable basis to believe that the force he uses is necessary to protect the apparent victim from the threatened harm."

The key word there is "defense." A person may be in actual imminent danger but forcibly removing another's kidney to save the dying person can not be called defense of that person.

pinqy

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by pinqy

The key word there is "defense." A person may be in actual imminent danger but forcibly removing another's kidney to save the dying person can not be called defense of that person.

pinqy

Then why bring in self-defense vs. defense of others if the distinction is really one of imminent threat?

[pinqy]

Originally Posted by Chloe

Then why bring in self-defense vs. defense of others if the distinction is really one of imminent threat?

Huh? For either self-defense or defense of others there must be imminent threat from another person. If a person is not actively causing the harm, then killing them is not self-defense.

pinqy